Is Britains Security Chief for Real? Top Spooks Rant on Afghanistan Smacked of Fake News by Martin Jay!
(2021-09-16 at 00:07:30 )

Is Britains Security Chief for Real? Top Spooks Rant on Afghanistan Smacked of Fake News by Martin Jay!

Is there a dark game being played here by the spooks in Britain, using a cavernous and inept media machine to create a smoke screen to the real issues?

One wonders if Britains MI5 chief, Ken McCallum is a real person or some banal technical creation of the boffins of the United Kingdoms home security service.

His recent comments about the Taliban giving rogue winnable terrorists around the world a moral boost after the calamity of the United States withdrawal in Afghanistan not only smacks of "stating the bleeding obvious" but also of paternal baloney nefariously designed to distract the United Kingdoms public attention away from the real issues.

Is Mr. McCallum actually the real boss of MI5 or the nerdy, hapless fake chief who is there merely to generate fake news in the United Kingdom press?

Writing in the God-awful woke Guardian, he harps on about preventing over thirty United Kingdom terror attacks which he admits span over four years, but spectacularly fails to make his assertions stand up. His unsubstantiated article was really just a rant which probably only served his own interests rather than the countrys; it also neatly took a pot shot at Joe Biden without naming the United States president which might give us all a hint about the so-called special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States being really just a farce, or a cliché used by both sides on special occasions.

But in a period where people are reflecting about Afghanistan and trying to look for lessons learnt, the article was way off the mark for a intelligence chief and raised a number of red flags.

The Americans and the British who followed them got the intel really wrong in Afghanistan as indeed was the case in Iraq. So should we really expect anything from the security services in terms of looking back - and then looking forward? And is there a dark game being played here by the spooks in Britain, using a cavernous and inept media machine to create a smoke screen to the real issues?

How could anyone with any real intellect and understanding of international politics be so stupid? The oversimplification is stunning.

In reality, some pundits might speculate that such media stunts are all about guiding a gullible public away from the difficult-to-chew truth towards the easier-to-swallow perceived truth about United States interventionism and the link to homegrown terrorism.

The United States of America has failed spectacularly in its military ventures for decades, going back to Nicaragua, El Salvador, Korea and Vietnam.

It has a short blip in the 90s with the NATO-led air strikes against Serbia and later some success in Kosovo; but a small cabal of foreign hacks have always pointed to the faked attacks on Muslims in Sarajevo which paved the way for NATO getting the green light for the campaign pushed by the odious Madeleine Albright.

And in the same period, a United States-led United Nations mission in Somalia in 1993 led to the bungling of a raid supposed to bring a recalcitrant warlord in, but led to the catastrophe of "Black Hawk Down" - which singularly led to Bill Clinton failing to intervene in the Rwandan genocide a year later.

In the 90s there was a false sense of righteousness brought about largely by the Russian withdrawal of Afghanistan. And this has prevailed leading to 2001 when George W Bush sent troops to Afghanistan - by far the biggest failure of United States military-led foreign policy ever leading to thousands of lost lives, trillions of dollars of debt and most European leaders scratching their heads in recent weeks wondering if Europe can ever be beguiled into blindly following the United States into an intervention ever again, regardless of how shocking the events are which preceded it.

The United States of America just can not help itself in using its force to resolve the illogical outcomes of its befuddled policies. Madeleine Albright once commented in 1998 when she was Secretary of State that "If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."

And Britain can not seem to help itself but to follow Washington,D.C. wherever it goes.

But what the United Kingdom spy chief failed, curiously, to point out in his link with the Taliban and United Kingdom terror attacks is that it is London which has supported the United States in its dirty wars in Syria and Libya which has overwhelmingly led to nearly all of the attacks he claims he is foiling.

It was Britain after all who even assisted Libyans living there to get on planes and go to Libya to fight with Al Qaeda to overthrow Mr. Gaddafi, before returning only to be welcomed at Heathrow airport by spooks who gave them the nod and the wink.

It was also Britain who stood side by side with the United States in its sponsoring of Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria who were hilariously called "moderates" just to help British journalists who were camped in Beirut but who ventured into Northern Syria to "embed" with them.

There are no moderates anymore in Syria, in case you were wondering.

The West has given up its obsession with Mr. Assad so the need to blur the lines is no longer necessary.

Dirty wars though, which involve terrorists being paid hard cash by the United States and the United Kingdom, will no doubt continue as long as a naïve public laps up all those terribly insightful articles in the Guardian and assumes them to be genuine.

And how is it that the home security boss seems to be an expert on Afghanistan, to the point where he is almost preparing the British public for British soldiers to return there at some point?

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.