‘US-Israeli protocol: Divide and conquer’

Writer Mark Glenn has explained how Israel’s policy papers go back thirty years on how to break up states such as Iraq, Egypt and Libya into smaller states for destabilization.

The following is the transcript of Press TV’s interview with Glenn, writer and political commentator of Coeur d’Alene, Iowa.

Press TV: Looking at Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ comments recently in Cairo, “a pro-longed assault on Libya” or a war as you may call it. This is Obama’s first war. Why would he want to make this go further than how it has already played out?

Glenn: I think the general agenda for the region is to see general destabilization in every regime, in every country except for Israel. I liken the events beginning with Tunisia to somebody going and getting the tires changed on their car because the tires have gotten old and worn out. They are not going to replace the vehicle. They are just going to replace the tires.

So I think what they would like to see happen is for Libya to act as a wound so to speak that spreads outward through the entire body. They would like to see a general sense of destabilization, and possibly even civil war given all the different sectarian and ethnic rivalries that exist in the area. As long as things are destabilized, Israel and the United States — and particularly Israel — as long as she remains a steady, stable force it puts her at a great advantage over her enemies, and that is how we need to see all of the countries in that region. They are viewed as Israel’s enemies even if they have standing peace agreements with Israel.

So Obama and more importantly the people who are above him telling him what to do are talking about extending this thing and making it longer. Last night, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was talking about we may see this wrapped in within two days. You know we have to read between the lines here that they say one thing and do another. I think as I said that the general plan here is to have another foothold in the region; an American foothold that is able to project power militarily. I think that Libya has been chosen now as the base for doing that.

Press TV: What do you think the intent here really is?

Glenn: I would foremost caution the people listening to this program to basically put aside this whole term “no-fly zone.” I believe that this is just a fancy collection of words that they have used to signify their intent to invade and militarily destroy or occupy Libya as they have Iraq. A no-fly zone obviously sounds much better, and it sounds humanitarian. It certainly does not denote the imagery of warfare, and killing civilians as has taken place in Iraq now for the last eight years. I think that the overall agenda here is to remove Gaddafi from power, and install a government that is going to be more cooperative with the west, and most importantly with Israel, and to make an example of Gaddafi so the rest of the leaders in that part of the world will not think twice about standing up and thumbing their nose at western demands.

There are humanitarian issues all over the world, but the United States does nothing in regards to these, and especially if it happens to embarrass her patron state, which is Israel. So we have to keep in mind the United States is the same country under the pretenses of liberation of the Iraqi people, and saving the world from weapons of mass destruction that were not found. It used these excuses to invade and destroy a country and killing close to two million innocent people. Who knows how many are going to die in the generations to come because of the radiation poisoning left because of the depleted uranium. Humanitarianism and the present ruling structure in the United States simply do not work hand in hand.

Press TV: Mr. Glenn, you spoke of the US flexing its military muscle there and military might. The Libyan war is going very well in the US viewpoint, militarily speaking, but politically, things are grumbling on the ground. We saw it in Egypt. The US was forging military alliances as opposed to diplomatic and political ones. Is this a smart move considering we are in the 21st century in a post-colonial, post-cold war era?

Glenn: Well, whether it’s a good idea or not that of course depends on who is doing the talking here. For the United States, when you understand that the agenda here is, and we have to keep in mind that whatever the US agenda is it’s working hand in hand with Israel. If the US agenda is to destabilize these countries, and see them weak and ultimately see them break up into smaller feudal states, or even tribal states. Then all of this makes perfect sense. All we have to do is look at what is taking place in Iraq and there is proof of that. The way to keep yourself strong is to keep your enemies weak and this is not a new theory.

Israel was writing policy papers about this as far back as thirty years ago. It was about the need to break up particularly the larger states such as Iraq, Egypt and Libya into smaller states. Hence, by doing this you prevent them from being able to unify, and act cohesively against outside forces such as US imperialism and Israel’s foreign policy, or geographical goals in the region. So in that sense, it makes perfect sense for the United States to be doing this. The other thing I would like to point out and for everybody to keep in mind is that the word stalemate was being used literally on the very first day military operations began against Libya.

Now the media is basically just one tentacle on the octopus here. When the media starts using words like this it’s not by accident especially if the media is using words like this being quoted from high ranking officials who are overseeing these military operations. So when the media starts talking about stalemate literally in the opening hours of the war, there is a reason for that. The reason of course is to create the mindset in the American people where they hear the word stalemate. And then they say oh no, not again. We already have a stalemate in Afghanistan. We already have a stalemate in Iraq. We don’t need another stalemate. So Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of Defense, Mr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, do whatever you have to do. Be as brutal and overwhelming in military force as you need to be in order to prevent this stalemate from happening.

So I believe that this is a psychological trick that the government and media working together in tandem with each other are employing in order to prepare the American mind for even more military operations. When they talk about there is not a target on Gaddafi and that they are not out to get him, let’s just keep in mind that it was the President himself who was saying a week before these military operations commenced that Gaddafi had to go and the United States was tightening the noose around him.