Why the Euro-Islamist Alliance is increasing

The real reason the European Union wants to flood Europe with economic Muslim migrants is out of fear of Russia.

The rise of Russia and China over the last few decades has been remarkable. While China has been steadily growing in production through use of a combination of Capitalism and Communism, Russia has stabilized its areas of instability in the 1990's and, until the trouble in Ukraine began, was doing very well for itself economically.

The Arab Spring and the mess in Ukraine largely took allies away from Russia, but in the face of the current crises in the Middle-East, Russia is set to solidify and gain alliances back. For example, the military intervention against the rebels in Syria has given Russia complete monopoly over Syria and a sure ally in Bashar Al-Assad. With Egypt's help, Russia has also been working on a solution to the Libyan crisis, which would mean Russia would hold sway there as well. Even Russian-Egyptian relations are warming quicker than American-Egyptian relations.

If Russia ends up with military bases in Syria, Libya and Egypt - which I deem likely - that presents a serious threat to hegemony in the EU and even undermines the European Project itself. Therefore, the perceived solution for a weakening Europe is to flood their lands with economic Muslim migrants, because radical Islamic culture is incompatible with Russian influence. Islam represents the best bulwark for Europe against a revived Russia.

Not all EU countries have nor will follow this madness to its conclusion. While Sweden, France and Germany are likely to become part of a Muslim Europe, countries like Poland and Hungary would sooner put past differences with Russia behind them than overrun their country with economic Muslim migrants. Even Britain stands a good chance of resisting this mass emigration, due partially to Brexit and partially to the compartmentalization of Britain into Muslim and non-Muslim areas.

Whatever the case, areas which have resisted Muslim occupation for hundreds and hundreds of years are about to become part of the Muslim world. The EU has valued hatred for Russia over the preservation of its own civilization.

Macron's victory proves western civilisation's impending collapse

After a society turns hyper-sexual, wait 60 years - then you'll see it implode on itself.

In light of this, however, I was surprised when Britain voted Brexit and, subsequently, America voted Trump . I wondered, huh, maybe the west has avoided the fate of the nations before it.

Then Emanuel Macron won the French election.

Left wing politics have become really stupid. Instead of working out how to solve Climate Change - which is the perhaps most pressing issue of our time - the left cries for secular Arab dictatorships to be overthrown, screams for women to end up with more rights than men, screams about micro-aggressions and welcomes excessive economic migrants from Muslim countries.

It doesn't really make a lot of logical sense - until you realise that western civilisation's collapse is self-made and imminent.

The collapse of western civilisation is rooted in post-modernism - which is the rejection of any form of ideology and the ultimate western-culture-loathing pit. That is how Muslim immigration fits into post-modernism: these westerners actually want their society destroyed and to be overpopulated with Muslims.

While Trump and Brexit suggest a shift to the political right (which will save the English-speaking peoples from collapse) France, Germany and other countries of the EU are still holding onto failed left-wing ideals and failed left-wing immigration policies, which will undoubtedly result in the destruction of western culture in countries like France, Germany and Sweden. Western and Central Europe will become Muslim Europe.

Even "better" is that they will have a strong, Muslim leader to bring the Ottoman Empire back to life: Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. He has systematically destroyed the secular ideology of Ataturk - upon which Turkey was founded - and seeks to bring back the Ottoman Empire. While unlikely to be able to rule the Middle-East - given Russian and American strong ties to the region - the Ottoman Empire spreading out into Europe seems eerily familiar: after the fall of Constantinople, the Ottomans conquered their European empire before conquering the Middle-East.

With Macron elected as President of France, it isn't hard to see how Turkey may actually become part of the European Union in the future, and through the EU remake the Ottoman Empire.

But what about Le Pen? If she couldn't win this time in 2017, there is no way she will win in 2022. With the amount of Muslims Macron is planning on bringing into France, that will shift the population decisively away from Le Pen.

Western collapse is impending in Europe. Civil war is likely to light up the continent as people to the political left and right will tear each other to shreds. I am confident right-wing Britain may actually be victors in such a war, but Sweden, France and Germany (Germany provided a pro-EU chancellor wins this year, which I believe likely) are likely to fall to left-wing/Muslim immigration policies permanently, until Muslims end up ruling western and central Europe.

Soon we are going to see a very different Europe. This next Europe will be supported by either Turkey, Britain/US coalition or Russia. It will be a very dangerous time, a time in which Turkey will become increasingly isolated and nations surrounding Turkey - like Syria, Iraq and Greece - will turn to Russia or America for protection against it.

It is the end of western civilisation as we know it.

Instead of attacking Yemen

I personally believe that Saudi Arabia has made an enormously erroneous move by attacking the Houthis in Yemen and being stuck in a war that only benefits Al-Qaeda.

But I understand that sometimes countries need to exert their influence to make the world a better place. So the question therein lies: what would have been a better alternative for Saudi Arabia than attacking Yemen?

Well, attacking Syria would have been even more disastrous. Russia would have stepped in and completely pushed back Saudi Arabia from overthrowing the Assad Government.

In order to decrease Iranian influence in the region, it would have better served Saudi Arabia to exert an enormous amount of air power in Iraq against ISIS - maybe even send troops there. Such a move could have been supported with the opening of a Saudi Embassy in Baghdad, high level meetings between their two governments and Saudi promising to invest in Iraqi infrastructure after ISIS' defeat.

ISIS represents an even greater threat to Saudi Arabia than Iran does. So it is in Saudi's interest to destroy ISIS at all costs, especially when Iraq borders Saudi Arabia.

But in addition to this, Saudi Arabia could strengthen Iraq as a sovereign nation to get it out of Iranian influence. It could push for the Iraqi Shi'ites to be less obedient to Iran and more obedient to Ayatollah Ali As-Sistani and, subsequently, help fund Sistani's Iraqi Shi'ism against the Iranian Shi'ism, because they are different.

Not only so, but Saudi could have sent its own Shi'ites on scholarship to study Iraqi Shi'ism in Iraq, to stop them being radicalised by Iran. Iraq could have even been invited into the GCC. That would be one way to certainly make Iraq more balanced between Iran and the Gulf states.

If strengthening relations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia wasn't enough, Saudi could have perhaps done an air campaign in Libya on the side of Haftar Al-Khalifa. This would have also strengthened Saudi's position in the region far more than an attack on the Houthis has.

Correspondingly, Saudi could have withdrawn from the ISIS campaign in Syria and cut off all diplomacy with the Houthi-occupied Yemen. That way Saudi would have still been seen as "sticking it" to Iran while also helping make the region more stable.

There are more ways to defeat Iran than just by bombing their allies.

Why North Korea Debacle is great for the Middle-East

Trump ran on an non-interventionist campaign, but the Establishment hates him for it.

There has been enormous pressure on Trump to act in a wide variety of Middle-East conflicts, such as in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan. For the most part, Trump has resisted pressure of unwise escalation, with the exception of an airstrike on a Syrian Government airbase a couple weeks ago.

But the risk is that the Washington Establishment (or, as Trump calls it, the Swamp) will want him to escalate more Middle-East wars to keep the Establishment going. Obama succumbed to the pressure from the Establishment in Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia - whereas in Iraq he made his own decision: pulling out. (As for Obama-Establishment tensions on Syria, it is more complicated than a simple one or the other.)

While refusing to exit from any of the Middle-East conflicts thus far, Trump has so far mostly escalated the conflicts against terrorist networks rather than against governments in any area. As of now, Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Iran and Haftar Al-Khalifa in Libya are all still standing, and Trump has not attacked any of them - with the exception of one airstrike two weeks ago against Syria.

North Korea only increases the likelihood that Trump will not escalate against Bashar Al-Assad, the Houthis, Iran or Haftar Al-Khalifa. With North Korea looking so incredibly unstable and with war between the US and North Korea looking possible, the Establishment would be satisfied with a Korean War over and above many of the piecemeal conflicts in the Middle-East.

This gives Trump the gateway through which he may be able to withdraw from several conflicts in the Middle-East. He has stated that he will give Prime Minister Abadi "strong, firm support" calling them "important partners", so it is unlikely Trump will withdraw from Iraq. He is also unlikely to withdraw from Afghanistan, as winning the Afghan War would make Trump go down in history as a great President. And it is possible that Trump could win this war before he leaves the Presidency.

However, regarding Libya, Trump has shown incredible resistance to interfering with Russian/Egyptian plans in the country, which has caused frustration for Europe but popular support from Americans. Trump has also shown resistance to attacking the Houthis in Yemen. He is also not interested in invading and overthrowing the Syrian Government. In addition to all this, Iran has quietened down in the face of being put "on notice" by the US government.

North Korea, therefore, presents a piecemeal offering Trump may offer to the Establishment, in exchange for withdrawal from Syria after the destruction of ISIS, as well as non-interference against Libya, the Houthis in Yemen and Iran. Because of this, the Middle-East might be spared more regime change madness and be given a chance at some sort of recovery after the disastrous Obama years.

If John Waver had done an Iraq War

I would never have done it in 2003. For what I would have actually done in response to 9-11 if I had been in George Bush's shoes, see the following article:

http://jwaverterror.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/if-john-waver-had-been-george-w-bush.html

But let's just say that George W. Bush invaded Iraq, took control of Baghdad, had a heart-attack and John Waver happened to be the Vice President. What would have I done to limit the Iraqi debacle?

Of course I would've found Saddam Hussein and I probably would have exiled him rather than execute him.

I would not have handed Iraq over to the Shi'ite Arab population, as Bush did. Nor would have I kept another Sunni Arab Ba'athist dictator in power.

I would have formed a Kurdish government to control Iraq.

Iraq is a completely unstable nation. That is why someone like Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the lid on it. The only force capable of keeping Iraq together - other than the Arab Ba'ath party - is the Kurds. They may not be the most populous group on the ground, but they are certainly the most driven group on the ground.

I would have let the Iraqi Army still serve, under the Kurds - together with their Peshmerga. The advantage of having Kurds control Iraq is that the Kurdish problem in Iran, Syria and Turkey would almost be solved overnight - they would emigrate to Iraq and not stay in the other countries. It would mean borders would not need to be changed for the Kurds to control a country.

Kurdish populations would have moved into Baghdad and would have moved the Sunni Arabs out of historically Kurdish regions, like Kirkuk - called the Kurdish Jerusalem - and into other Iraqi regions. The Kurds would have kept tight control on the Sunni and Shi'ite Arab populations and would have restricted immigration to just Kurds from Syria, Iran and Turkey to balance out the population in favour of the Kurds.

It would have sent a shockwave of enormous proportions throughout the Middle-East. Under the Kurds Iraq would have established public ties with Israel. Also, Saudi Arabia and Iran would have funded terrorism in Iraq like crazy - but instead of one terror group controlling the country - Iran-backed militias - and the other treated the enemy - Al-Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS - both would be seen as the enemy, making Iran-backed militias and ISIS-minded jihadists less popular than they are today.

It would have caused outrage from the other Arab nations, as well as Turkey and Iran. But it also would have solved the Kurdish issue, given Israel an ally, protected the Yazidi and Christian minorities, and prevented terrorism from spreading as far and wide as it did in Bush's Iraq War and in Obama's Syria War.

It would not have been perfect, nor would it have been as stable as under Saddam Hussein. But it would have been one of the best scenarios in what was the epic debacle of the Iraq War.

Yemen: the next Islamic State 2017 UPDATE

Original article written on 21st of August, 2015

First published on blogger.com on 20th of November 2016

Original article can be found here:

http://jwaverfpolicy.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/yemen-next-islamic-state.html

Since 21st of April 2015, Saudi Arabia has been leading a coalition against Zaidi rebels in Yemen, the Houthis, in an attempt to restore the recognized President of Yemen, Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, to power.  In the subsequent chaos of the Yemen War, there has been one group gaining momentum at the expense of both President Hadi and the Zaidi Houthi rebels.

And it isn’t ISIS.

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is gaining most out of the chaos of Saudi Arabia's Yemen war. Like ISIS, which was born out of the Iraq War (2003) and built up in the Syrian Civil War (2011), AQAP is building its momentum as a direct result of Saudi intervention. And like ISIS, AQAP is underestimated by the group utilizing them.

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, though dangerous, is perceived by Saudi Arabia as the 'lesser of two evils' against the Houthis and thus receives aid to fight the Zaidi rebels. AQAP has since emerged as a legitimate player for control of Yemen.

It is unlikely that AQAP would attempt to establish a Caliphate as ISIS has done. The reason for this is that the tribes working with the group have a different political agenda. ISIS was born out of an alliance with Iraqi Ba’ath Party militants disenfranchised with America’s vision for a democratic Iraq. The Iraqi Ba’ath Party has sought to create unity across different countries, which coincides with ISIS’ aim in establishing a caliphate.

The tribes which back AQAP are interested in seeing Southern Yemen looked after more than it was under the previous dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Some groups, like the Southern Movement, want Southern Yemen to break away from Northern Yemen altogether. Other groups, like the tribes allied to President Hadi, would rather see Southern Yemen become more prominent in politics.

AQAP, like ISIS before it, is likely to swallow the smaller groups with different agendas, such as the Southern Movement, the tribes which back President Hadi and Sunni tribes currently under the Houthis, to establish an Islamic Emirate across as much of Yemen as possible, with the southerners on top.

AQAP has been the most effective fighting force against the Houthis. President Hadi is likely to let AQAP gain strongholds in northern Yemen at the expense of the Houthis and deal with the fallout later. Unfortunately, should Houthi-allied Sunni tribes swap allegiance to Al-Qaeda, AQAP would become far more powerful than the current Yemeni President.

The northern Yemeni tribes would only leave the Houthi alliance if they had no other option. If supporting Al-Qaeda or President Hadi become the choices for the northern Yemeni tribes, they would overwhelmingly choose Al-Qaeda and subsequently wage war on the Hadi government.

Northern Yemen hates President Hadi more than Al-Qaeda.

Though AQAP consider Shi'ites (and subsequently Zaidis) as heretics, they believe, as does the rest of Al-Qaeda, that focusing on a Sunni-Shi'ite conflict is counter-productive. This means Zaidi tribes could be won over by AQAP to - implicitly - support the Al-Qaeda war against the Hadi government.

The unfortunate thing is that America is unlikely to realize the extent of the threat AQAP poses until it is too late. Though marked as the most active of the Al-Qaeda franchises in its attacks on the West, the group is headed for attacks in a completely different region.

Saudi Arabia is a country despised by both ISIS and Al-Qaeda for its alliance with America and its control of the holy cities Mecca and Medina. Should AQAP defeat the Houthis, the power held by Al-Qaeda would force a confrontation between Saudi Arabia and AQAP, first through Saudi's proxy, President Hadi, then against Saudi Arabia itself.

Should this occur, there would be nothing America could do to save the Arabian Gulf from civil war.

NATO is in Iraq

I wish to let you my readers know that I was wrong about NATO and Iraq - NATO, as of January 2017, has been in Iraq training the Iraqi Security Forces.

I wish to apologize for not finding this information out sooner and doing enough research into NATO's involvement in Iraq since Trump became President. Iraq is going to be another NATO project, as Afghanistan is.

This is likely to have several repercussions. It is clear that Iraqi oil is likely to be the great monopoly for not only America, but for all NATO partners. It is also clear that NATO spending will ease American finances in Iraq, which will greatly help America. It will force Russia out of eyeing Iraq as a potential ally and sees western-Iraqi relations increasing to new heights.

Whether Trump will expand NATO intervention into Libya and Syria or not is unclear, as this may hinder Trump's desire to 'get along well with Putin,' as the most effective forces in both these countries are backed by Russia. Yemen is even more illusive.