John R. Houk
© July 11, 2016
Daniel Gladstein had two comments to Norma Zager’s submission “What Me Worry?” (on the NCCR blog) of which the first I was not on board with but the second I thought might deserve some consideration.
The theme of the first comment grouped the Christian Right and Jewish Zionist supporters of the existence of Israel with the same methodology as Islamists, violent Marxists and White Supremacists as one and the same. I did not concur as I explained in these thoughts:
Daniel attaching the Christian Right to Nazis, Leftists, Islamists, the Far Right (I am guessing this would be all forms of white supremacists), Zionist Jews and probably more extremists as simply divergent aspects but the same methodology is not something I concur with. Although there might be a small fraction of the Christian Right that condone violence of any means as a methodology to achieve an end, that small fraction is in NO WAY representative of the entire Christian Right that simply desire a government that doesn’t endorse immorality as a norm, does not force the issue of accepting the practices of an immoral lifestyle and supports the existence of a Jewish State. Admittedly the Christian Right supports the existence of a Jewish State for different reasons than Leftist Jews, Right Wing Jews and Observant Jews. The Christian Right sees the return of Israel as a sign of the times of the soon return of the Messiah King Jesus who will heal whatever divides Jews and Christians on the view point on who the Biblical Messiah is. Jewish Zionists of both sides of the political spectrum view the Jewish State as the restoration of a lost heritage as a place to live without government sponsored persecution of Jews whether secular or religious. Israeli Jews even disagree among themselves of how Israel should be constituted depending on the political spectrum of Left, Right, Secular or religiously observant. However, all Israeli Jews believe Israel must exist for Jews.
So anyway, grouping the Christian Right and Jewish Zionists in toto with Islamists, White Supremacists, Leftist violent extremists and so on is a bit of a bad judgement in my opinion. Otherwise after pondering your other points, including your “deep state” thoughts in your following comment is quite deserving of introspective pondering.
However, I thought his “deep state” thoughts of the second comment might be deserving of some contemplation. Now to add some thought dwelling to Daniel’s second comment I had to look-up what the “deep state” might signify. I went to Wikipedia for a definition:
For other uses, see State within a state.
The deep state (Turkish: derin devlet) is alleged to be a group of influential anti-democratic coalitions within the Turkish political system, composed of high-level elements within the intelligence services (domestic and foreign), Turkish military, security, judiciary, and mafia. The notion of deep state is similar to that of a "state within the state". For those who believe in its existence, the political agenda of the deep state involves an allegiance to nationalism, corporatism, and state interests. Violence and other means of pressure have historically been employed in a largely covert manner to manipulate political and economic elites and ensure specific interests are met within the seemingly democratic framework of the political landscape. Former president Süleyman Demirel says that the outlook and behavior of the (predominantly military) elites who constitute the deep state, and work to uphold national interests, are shaped by an entrenched belief, dating to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, that the country is always "on the brink".
The ideology of the deep state is seen by leftists as being anti-worker or ultra-nationalist; by Islamists as being anti-Islamic and secularist; by ethnic Kurds as being anti-Kurdish, and by liberal democrats as anti-democratic and anti-liberal.As pointed out by former prime minister Bülent Ecevit, the diversity of opinion reflects a disagreement over what constitutes the deep state. One explanation is that the "deep state" is not an alliance, but the sum of several groups that antagonistically work behind the scenes, each in pursuit of its own agenda.Another explanation refutes the reduction of the deep state to an interest network and defines it as a type of domination based on the high military autonomy levels that enable the security apparatus to disrupt formal democratic institutions (in the foreground) by employing a sui generis repertoire of informal institutions (in the background), i.e. putsch threat, autocratic cliques, mafia, organized crime and corruption. Rumours of the deep state have been widespread in Turkey since Ecevit's term as prime minister in the 1970s, after his revelation of the existence of a Turkish counterpart to Italy's Operation Gladio, the "Counter-Guerrilla".
Many Turks, including elected politicians, have stated their belief that the "deep state" exists.
More recently, the term 'deep state' has been used to describe politics in other nations including Egypt and the United States.
So the author of the above Wikipedia article uses the now extinct Ottoman Empire which was replaced by the secular republic of Turkey as platform for the existence of shadow governments within various major powers of the present. Then the Wikipedia author goes into the details of the Turkish evolution of this Deep State apparatus,
There is little elaboration of Deep State operations in various other nations such as the USA. Nevertheless, it is not a big stretch that there is an insinuation of a coalition Deep State entities globally that wheel and deal clandestine agreements and rivalries outside the structure of the rule of law. To what purpose? To leverage global domination for the winners.
Armed with this info you should tackle Daniel Gladstein’s thoughts in his second comment.
The relationship between the Pakistani ISI and the CIA during the Soviet–Afghan War (1979–92) and the ensuing civil war (1992–2001) illustrates the delicate balance between cooperative competitors that nevertheless view each other, or at least one side, as a credulous enemy to be deceived and exploited, ostensibly for the stated purposes of anti-Soviet coordination, but actually for divergent goals. The CIA funneled aid to ISI and its Saudi allies, which in turn employed favored groups, namely Sunni (and especially Arab rather than Afghan) Islamists, as anti-Soviet proxies. However, the real goal of these Islamists, especially the Arab “volunteers,” was to usurp the credibility of their anti-Soviet rivals, who were often more capable fighters, came from ethnic minorities rather than the Pashtun tribes, and, like all Afghans, were non-Arabs. Despite this, the CIA and ISI tapped the Islamists, in particular for drug-running operations and opium production.
The CIA-, ISI-, and Saudi-favored groups accrued more aid and weaponry, including surface-to-air missiles, than their competitors did, yet did less fighting over a shorter period. The Arab “volunteers,” in particular, saw the U.S., Israel, and the al-Saud family, rather than the Soviets, as their main enemies. These “volunteers” later formed the initial core of al-Qaeda, which, through its links to wealthy patrons, had extensive financial and ideological links to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, while Sunni, was tied to the unorthodox Shiite ideology of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who sought an alliance with Sunni Arabs to ensure Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. (It should be noted that, early in the Iranian Revolution, Khomeini and his domestic allies, both Islamist and radical leftist, saw the Soviets as a potential ally against U.S.-backed Sunni regimes—and a weapon to overthrow the U.S.-led order in the Middle East.)
Khomeini was a visionary revolutionist who envisaged an Islamist coalition to co-opt secular leftists and unite under the banner of anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, and anti-imperialism. This goal would find ready recipients in Yasser Arafat’s secular PLO, non-aligned but revolutionary Marxist states like Castro’s Cuba (and its late ally, Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela), the unstable Stalinist regime of East Germany, and Soviet clients like Gaddafi’s Libya, which sponsored pan-African, anti-colonialist, and anti-apartheid movements. These were often anti-Zionist and were generally tied to ostensibly progressive elements in the Western New Left, including radical, Maoist-inspired communists. (All these elements, including the radical leftist MEK [which later became a CIA/Iraqi proxy in the Iran–Iraq War], may have aided Khomeini’s faction in the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran.)
Thus the Muslim Brotherhood/al-Qaeda milieu, which derived its ideology from far-right fascist movements rather than traditional Islam, aimed to amass the forces of the left, the apostate Shiites (now reformed under the unorthodox, pro-Sunni Khomeini), and the KGB and its global allies. Their aim was nothing less than the total destruction of the U.S., Israel, and the existing regional order. The Muslim world, formerly diverse, would be Arabized and homogenized under the guide of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, which would include both the Soviet and Western blocs. Once the Brotherhood’s global order was established, it would dispense with the ostensibly leftist elements, their usefulness in destroying the West (and the old Muslim world) exhausted. However, in the meantime, its role in polarizing the world by intervening in and fostering local conflicts would be indispensable, and could be readily exploited by an opportunistic but nominally opposing side.
Note that the U.S. deep state and its allies would play an indispensable role in fostering and exploiting its ostensible enemies. The heterogeneity of the forces at work would indicate numerous centers of power, colluding with each other where interests overlap but ultimately aiming to destroy or control the other. The continual appearance of links between ostensibly “conservative,” and avowed far-right, U.S. deep-state constituents and far-left anti-Western forces, as well as the considerable overlap in their views and aims, is too pervasive to attribute to mere coincidence, especially given each side’s ties to global finance, including the public sphere (i.e., banks, leading financial and political institutions, universities, NGOs) and the underworld drug/arms networks, which utilize fronts and false paper or electronic trails to avoid scrutiny, much less a full uncovering of their activities.
An example is the milieu of James J. Angleton, CIA counterintelligence director, who knowingly recruited KGB double agents to spread disinformation that would serve both Soviet and U.S. deep-state hardliners, whose shared interest was to further the Cold War, which Angleton likely calculated would benefit his (ultimately anti-American and nominally anticommunist) right-wing Mafia, Teamster, and drug-running connections, all of which were organically linked to fascist, Nazi, and neo-Nazi elements in post-war Europe, East Asia, and Latin America. (Note that many of these right-wing elements were associated with stay-behind networks established by NATO and Western intelligence, as part of Operation GLADIO, an early Cold-War effort to foster local anti-Soviet forces in the event of a Soviet military incursion into Western Europe and the Mediterranean. These forces soon strayed beyond their masters’ intentions, became enmeshed in local and regional political structures, and pursued their own interests through the drugs-and-arms milieu, often while under the patronage of both Western and Soviet-allied intelligence agencies.)
Note that elements of the CIA and its right-wing GOP allies have patronized “former” KGB-linked Marxist-Leninists turned Revisionist Zionists [i.e., in the right-wing, fascist-leaning Jabotinsky mold] within the Russian Jewish émigré community in Israel. These “defectors” were tapped as CIA assets with access to CIA-favored elites within the Soviet bureaucracy, who in turn would serve as dependable U.S. assets in a post-Soviet Russia, thereby benefiting the U.S. deep state’s economic interests. They would also form the nucleus of the CIA-assisted takeover of the State of Israel by the CIA-favored Netanyahu faction within Likud. They became favorites of the neoconservative WASP elite, its allies in the military-industrial-intelligence complex, and its far-right affiliates in the U.S. and abroad. One example of the neoconservative–communist nexus can be seen in the actions of Oliver North and Shackley, who were deeply involved, as were anti-Obama GOP rightists who coordinated their activities with Iranian hardliners, in treasonous activities with ostensible U.S. enemies.
North and Shackley, among others, likely worked with drug-laundering Saudi and Pakistani intelligence, and operated partly through the Safari Club, in what were likely joint Western/Soviet intelligence operations promoting Khomeini to power in Iran, supporting Iranian proxies like Hezbollah, and orchestrating the hostage crisis to beset President Carter (the so-called “October Surprise”). North, Shackley, and their allies hoped to benefit Western, especially British, multinational oil corporations by ousting the friendly Shah when his opposition to a deal, like Mossadegh’s in 1953, became inconvenient. (The BBC aired the British government’s unstated official policy by broadcasting Khomeini’s virulently anti-Shah and anti-Western speeches while he was still in exile.) Indeed, North and Shackley, who were both implicated in the Iran–Contra affair, were in the milieu of Israeli and other Western firms, like Halliburton, that secretly circumnavigated the official “freeze” on U.S.–Iranian ties by conducting oil (and, as we know, arms) deals with the revolutionary Khomeini regime. In return, the oil and arm transfers were covertly used to fund U.S. deep-state and Western intelligence, especially CIA, operations in sub-Saharan Africa and Central America, and probably in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe as well. These operations benefited the global arms-and-drugs milieu that the U.S. deep state and its ostensible opponents both exploited for divergent aims, though immediate goals, especially systematic (and systemic) destabilization, overlapped.
The milieu of cooperation can be seen in the formation of front companies like Far West, Ltd., which was composed of motley and seemingly irreconcilable characters: CIA operatives; KGB and GRU (Soviet military intelligence) figures who were then serving in Afghanistan; Stasi, (Cuban) DGI/G2, and (future pro-Chávez, Venezuelan) DICIP operatives; top officials from the Sunni Gulf states and Saudi Arabia as well as Pakistan; Chinese executives who ran shell companies to arm the Afghan mujahideen; and corporate figures from various Western companies. Other states on each side of the Iron Curtain, such as South Africa and Libya, may well have been involved as well. All the players had divergent aims but shared goals.
This alliance between former Soviet Marxist-Leninists-turned-neo-Nazi (or fascist) Russian nationalists and the U.S. deep state, as we shall see, is part of a broader long-term “convergence” strategy by global elites that transcends the ideological fiction that they present to various levels of the societies that they rule internally (and influence or control externally, often for the purpose of building alliances on the basis of shared goals). The Muslim Brotherhood and Sunni takfiris are closely allied not only to Western intelligence, but also to anti-Western proxies, domestic “leftist” groups, and anti-U.S. intelligence agencies. The pro-Islamist “leftists” may in fact be provocateurs for the U.S. deep state as well as anti-U.S. forces. The groups that they inhabit or control may be infiltrated by Western intelligence agencies and their contractors, whose allies in the media, the corporate world, and societal institutions—both on the “left” and on the “right”—have either openly supported Sunni (and Iranian-linked, or Khomeini/Khamenei-type, Shiite) Islamists or marginalized secular Muslims and true progressives.
Thus the narrative is shaped by phased indoctrination through a dialectical paradigm: secularists are branded by the “right” as supporting Islamists and/or Islamic extremism (either takfiri or Shiite violence, often in the form of terrorism), while the “left” expresses overtly what the “right” does more covertly, namely, support for Islamist forces. The “left,” unlike the “right,” does so ostensibly in the name of leftist tropes like “anti-imperialism,” anti-capitalism, or anti-globalization. Its actions are explained away as an outreach to build a coalition, a strange and not coincidental echo of the U.S. GOP right’s own “ethnic outreach” (far-right identity politics) during and after World War II, which was modulated through Nazi and fascist channels that were eventually tapped for use in the Cold War, both domestically and abroad.
Deep State USA
John R. Houk
© July 11, 2016