The American ‘Scissors’ in Statements and Apologies

It is not hard to identify more than one reason for the apology of the American vice president and even to repeat it. It is considered a political pre-anesthesia practiced by the American administration on a lot of American allies – or pawns – in the region, despite the infection of inquiry and illustration as a means of saving face.

If it is recognized that an apology does not in any way cancel what came in Biden’s statements, which preceded General Dempsey’s statement in front of Congress, this at least postpones the direct interactions that preceded the apology; these surfaced in the form of an American announcement to dust off and start reusing old “tools” in the region that have been known to support terrorism.

In fact, America itself has provided such support for the same reasons that their allies used to justify the recruitment and financing of terrorism and terrorists. The U.S. also provided political cover for its allies, protecting them against any future accountability for problems in the region. Thus, Biden’s remarks did not disclose any unknown secrets. Yet it remained in the context of Western whispers in corridors, in private meetings and behind closed doors.

Most of the Western media agencies have tried to act in harmony with American behavior in the Middle East, but they have failed to impose any logical explanation fit to justify or explain the nature of American action – which is adopting a “long war” to cover up signs of disappointment from the its allies in the Middle East, made up of its pawns. This behavior has become, in some situations, a heavy burden to the American administration, especially when expressing its inability to explain the shallowness of the outcome of American airstrikes.

What is for sure is that the American administration engages in blackmail against its tools and allies until the end, even before they do so against their enemies. They also use political, media and intelligence pressure in order to provide maximum free service even if forced to bid on American attitudes.

This can be understood from the Turkish recklessness and – hidden or declared – foolishness, which threatened to take the American coalition in a direction that the American administration was not ready to take. It is not, at least, on the list of urgent agendas or a priority of the current stage.

What is dangerous in this matter, of course, is not the statements or confessions of misjudgment, not even in one apology after the other; the danger lies, rather, in the American handling of the serious challenges posed by the spread of terrorism, which has become a real threat to the world, East and West, North and South, poor and rich – who finance the fight against it.

The American reaction to the current crisis in the Middle East has been lazy, hesitant, not serious and does not meet the minimum requirement for action. The most dangerous thing is that it is outside the context of international legitimacy and far from the authority of the Security Council. Moreover, it is not aimed at the eradication of terrorism; it is trying to trim the claws of some terrorist organizations that came out of the context of Western employment.

The American “scissors” were present through blackmail language, pressure statements and accusations. It was necessary to use these strategies to trim many of the positions of American pawns and their functional roles in the region. These American tools suffer from tumors at certain times and long sickness at other times, as well as excessive and catastrophic imagination at all times.