Seymour Hersh: US knowingly armed ISIS

[happyslug]

78. This is almost the reverse of Iroquois position during "the Old French War"

What was called during the American Revolution as the "Old French War" sometimes "King George's War" was the war between Britain and its American Colones against the Native Americans and their French Allies from 1744-1748. It received its name to differentiate it from the French and Indian war of 1754-1763 (Called the Seven Year War in Europe for it lasted Seven Years in Europe, in North America we started that war three years early, after starting late in the previous three wars).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George%27s_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

Both wars are part of the series of wars between the American Colonies and the French in Canada and their Native American Allies in the "French and Indians WARS" (notice the additional S at the end of War to differentiate the name for the series of wars with the last war of that series):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_Wars

Anyway, I bring up the "Old French War" for during that war the French in Canada did all they could to keep the Iroquois neutral, including giving them arms, at the same time the British and New York Colonial Governments were doing all they could to get the Iroquois to attack the French (Since the French appearance in Canada in the late 1500s, the Iroquois and the French had been fighting for control of the Great Lakes and the beaver trade that went by canoe over those lakes).

Historians have mentioned that in that war, the winner was the Iroquois, who stayed neutral. The Iroquois received arms and other supplies from BOTH sides during the conflict and efforts to take land from the Iroquois all but disappeared during and after that conflict (they would reappear after the end of the final French and Indian War in 1763 but not really reappear till after the American Revolution in 1783).

Thus for a 40 year period (1744-1783) the Iroquois grew stronger then its main opponent (the French who ended up being driven out of North America) and had no conflict with the British till the American Revolution. During the Revolution Iroquois federation had its first serious break up, the largest two tribes of the Iroquois, the Mohawks and Seneca tribes, supported the British, while the headquarter tribe but also the smallest tribe, the Oneida, supported the US (As did the Tuscaroras) . The other three tribes were divided in loyalty, through most members of those tribes favored the British (All of the tribes had members who supported one side or the other in the Revolution, like most of the Colonies had supporters of the revolution OR the King within each colony). This division among the Iroquois lead to the bloodiest battle, in terms of percentage of casualties of participates, in the American Revolution, the Battle of Oriskany).

http://nysparks.com/historic-sites/21/details.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Oriskany

While the end result was defeat of the Iroquois, I bring up the "Old French War" as an example of a war where the participates are the losers, while the side that stayed neutral is the winner. We saw this again when Bush invaded Iraq. The US forces removed Saddam from power, but then never had enough troops to truly take over Iraq (The US had problems getting recruits and the draft would have been the kiss of death to any support for the war in Iraq). That situation permitted Iran to support their fellow Shiites to take over the Government and win the war without sending in one soldier. The Situation in Iraq was so bad, that the US had to pull out three days early, so that the natives could not move into the former position of the US forces as the US Forces pulled out (The US told the natives what it planned to do that day, without telling them the US was pulling out, it appeared to the Natives a normal day, till the US trucks all left, three days early).

As to Syria, it is like when Argentina took the Falklands in the 1980s. The Argentina were later driven from those islands, giving the British a huge victory, the Argentina a short term victory (and a defeat to mourn over) but the real loser in that war was the US. US had wanted to use Argentina forces in Central America, but that idea died with the Falklands War. The US had been building up its reputation in Latin American as supportive of those countries, but all of those countries supported Argentina and basically asked how the US was going to SUPPORT Argentina. I remember a cartoon of the time period, it showed a huge statute to commemorate the British victory in the Falklands, a huge statute to commemorate the Argentian heroic efforts to win back the Malvinas, and a statue blown to bits marked "US Latin American Policy". Yes, the US was the real loser in that conflict. Argentina at least removed its Military Dictatorship do to that war, the US gain NOTHING and in fact LOST support among the Citizens of Latin America.

I see the same thing happening in Syria, no matter who wins, the US loses. The reason for that is the US is to tied in with the House of Saud. We have to break with that relationship even if it means the price of gasoline goes to $10 a gallon or we will be like the French in Canada in the 1700s, lose everything.