No. South Sudan is NOT a Regime Change Operation – It’s a Product Re-branding Program

by Scott Creighton

It bothers me a great deal when I read or hear misinformation spread by otherwise credible sources. These days it’s hard to figure out who has sold out and who hasn’t… as of yet. That’s why when I listened to the X22 Report yesterday I was a bit surprised to hear him infer that Obama had betrayed the government of South Sudan by making them sign a deal in order to ease the internal conflict in the country. X22 made a comparison between that arrangement and the Minsk II agreement in Ukraine which is ridiculous on it’s surface but more troubling is equating the illegitimate government of South Sudan to the rebels in eastern Ukraine.

As is often the case as of late, the United States has found itself in the unenviable position of having to remove various puppet leaders when things get too bad, or, more importantly, too visible on the international stage for them to continue to rule with an shred of legitimacy. It isn’t really about maintaining the illusion of legitimacy for our government’s client state in the nation as it is providing the indigenous population the pretext to “believe” that “change” is upon them.

I’ll give you a couple examples with the most notable being another case that was twisted by the so-called “alternative” gurus out there like “Tony Cartalucci” and Webster Tarpley and that is the example of the 2011 Egyptian revolution.

A protest in Tahrir Square in early 2011 turned into a revolution that topped off with numbers estimated at 2 million people near the end. Nearly 850 people were killed during the standoff which is ultimately what brought more and more Egyptians out of their homes and into the streets. Another 7,000 were seriously injured. 12,000 arrested.

The people started off protesting the usual fare in our neoliberalized nations: lack of free elections, high unemployment, low wages, privatizations and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s “emergency law” which essentially turned Egypt into a fascist police state on behalf of the global interests he was there to serve.

Once the labor unions in the country decided to back the protests with a general strike and commerce was threatened, our puppet Mubarak cracked down brutally on the protesters via various thug groups he employed for that purpose.

You will remember at first the Obama administration stood with the Mubarak regime, seeking to find a way to keep him and his corrupt family in power. But of course, that was only AFTER a very few media outlets started covering the story like al Jazeera and Press TV. US MSM put a gag order on the story and the protests were well into their 7th and 8th days before getting any coverage at all. And that is only because so much social media attention given to the revolution was driving people to check out the coverage on those two “lesser” news sites and people were starting to figure out that our MSM was ignoring the historic event on purpose.

You might recall when Hillary Clinton said Mubarak was a good man and personal friend of the Clinton family. They had absolutely no intention of removing him.

But things took a turn for the worse in Egypt and the newly elected “progressive” administration in D.C. was having a difficult time justifying their support of Mubarak’s brutal crackdown on protesters. Everyday another horrific scene played out on the international stage and there was President Peace Prize standing alongside the murderous dictator who was ordering the carnage.

After two and a half weeks and so many dead and wounded, Clinton gave the order and Mubarak finally agreed to step down.

People like Cartalucci and Tarpley would have you believe that the revolution was some sort of color revolution Washington staged against it’s own puppet dictatorship. You have to be smart enough to see through that or at least, go back and review the history of the event.

Before these globalists lose complete control of a nation, they will often attempt to install another asset of theirs. In the case of Egypt, an election was held and for the first time a popularly elected president came to power. That president oversaw the creation of a new constitution which would have prevented neoliberal austerity measures from being included in IMF loans so therefore the White House decided to install a new puppet in power and al Sisi was their man for that job.

That’s why they always want as a last resort to remove their soiled dictator and replace him with a new, shiny model that no one suspects just yet.

That’s exactly what happened in Iraq recently with Nouri al-Maliki. A major revolution sprung up in the wake of massive protests against his neoliberal regime after U.S. occupying forces left the country in 2013. After openly supporting his rule for a year, in the end, Obama had to demand his ouster in order to make the government there appear “more inclusive” which of course, it wasn’t.

In Yemen, the Houthis ran a revolution/insurgency from the north of the country against our puppet Saleh beginning in 2004. That was a brutal conflict during which time the U.S. provided all sorts of deadly assistance to Saleh’s military and Saudi Arabia also assisted in attacking the rebels from time to time.

As much as they tried to oust Saleh, in the end, it wasn’t the Houthis that did it but rather another mass protest in early 2011 that achieved the goal.

Taking their cue from both Egypt and Tunisia, the people of Yemen finally stood up to our dictator and after 4 months of massive protests and Saleh’s brutal crackdown on them, the State Department finally had to strike a deal between him and the opposition which hinged on him leaving office immediately.

As is often the case, the State Department then installed yet another puppet, this time Saleh’s vice president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi in May of 2011. He was installed by Hillary Clinton in a one candidate “election”

Things didn’t change at all and the Houthis finally overthrew his government in 2014. Now the U.S. is directing Saudi Arabia and a “coalition of the willing” in an endless bombing campaign of civilian infrastructure in an attempt to regain control of the country.

Some would have you believe that these were color revolutions targeting some of our most stable and long-standing dictatorships in the Middle East and Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the end, our client states sometimes devolve into an embarrassing and problematic chaos which threatens the profit margins of our “national interests” and when that happens, the neoliberals who run this country can’t just sit back as see which way democracy shakes out in the country.

Instead, they will sometimes have to take a proactive roll in negotiating a continuation of their influence rather than seeing it vanish as it was about to in Egypt under Morsi and as it has in Yemen under the rule of the Houthis.

You can only imagine what would happen in Iraq if the General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries came to power. Another Baathist regime would be in place and all those glorious oil contracts would be null and void.

In the case of South Sudan, recent reports of gross human rights violations being committed by the government against their own people have sparked a backlash of outrage from the international community.

The South Sudanese armed forces may have committed widespread human rights abuses, including the alleged raping and immolation of women and girls, during the recent upsurge in fighting across the African State, according to a new report released by the United Nations mission in the country (UNMISS).

The report – released today by UNMISS – suggests that the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and associated armed groups carried out a campaign of violence against the population of South Sudan’s Unity state, reportedly killing civilians, looting and destroying villages and displacing over 100,000 people. UN

South Sudan’s army raped then burned girls alive inside their homes during a recent campaign notable for its “new brutality and intensity”, a UN rights report said on Tuesday. Guardian

Civilians alleging torture by the SPLA claim fingernails being torn out, burning plastic bags dripped on children to make their parents hand over weapons and villagers burned alive in their huts if rebels were suspected of spending the night there. In May 2011, the SPLA allegedly set fire to over 7,000 homes in Unity state.[4] The United Nations Human Rights Council reported many of these violations, and the frustrated director of one Juba-based international aid agency called them “human rights abuses off the Richter scale“.[2]

In 2015, Salvar Kiir threatened to kill journalist who reported, “against the country”.[10] In August 2015, after journalist Peter Moi was killed in a targeted attack, being the seventh journalist killed during the year, South Sudanese journalists held a 24 hour news blackout.[11]

South Sudan is a neoliberalized state which was created by the former Bush administration when they failed to oust the legitimate government of Sudan who were seeking to cut a deal with the Chinese to build them a pipeline for their oil reserves.

Their president, Salvar Kir, was installed by the Bush administration and to this day, always is seen wearing a black cowboy hat given to him by President Bush. To him it’s a symbol of his connection to the global structure that the Bush family represents.

The peace deal that’s in play right now between the warring factions in South Sudan was brokered by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), an African coalition of concerned parties probably being led from behind by the U.S. State Department.

Of note, contrary to what the X22 report says, the deal does not require the removal of Salvar Kir, therefore this is not yet a regime change “fix” to their PR problem. In this case it seems we are at the “He’s a friend of the family and a good man” stage like we were Egypt not that long ago.

In this case, the deal includes a stipulation that the transitional government will be led by Salvar Kir for the next 30 months, essentially keeping the State Department’s puppet in play for another 2.5 years. There’s no measures in it dealing with holding him responsible for the deaths, rapes and burning of his own population.

The fact that this conflict has been given no media attention…

The fact that this “peace deal” ensures the maintenance of the neoliberal status quo in the country…

The fact that there is no regime change plan in effect at this point as they try to rehabilitate the image of their puppet…

All these things tell you this is not a regime change operation in South Sudan but rather a re-branding effort.

With what’s going on in places like Libya and Yemen (and even Iraq), the Obama administration is hard-pressed to maintain control of their assets. Too many losses, in any corporate structure, requires an administrative regime change. The U.S. as a business, with Obama as it’s CEO is no different. Either you perform for the stock-holders or you are replaced with someone who can.

What’s happening in South Sudan is NOT a regime change operation on par with Syria or Libya. It’s more like a product re-branding program looking to maintain their puppet dictator while shoring-up stability in the country on his behalf. Trying to compare it to Ukraine just makes no sense, but then again, neither does claiming Mubarak, Saleh and Maliki were ousted on purpose by the State Department for no apparent reason.

All that does is muddy the waters making it increasingly difficult for people, informed people, to understand what’s really going on here. The idea is that you make things so convoluted, you can never really understand what and who the real enemies are.

These are the Global Free Market Wars and they are conducted in a number of ways. It’s basic that you have to be able to tell one thing from another otherwise you’ll never see the trees for the forest.

5 Responses



  2. Nice analysis. So many shills out there. One correction though: It’s “forest for the trees”.

    • “can’t see the forest for the trees” means you can’t understand the big picture for concentrating on the little ones. “can’t see the trees for the forest” is my interpretation meaning people can’t understand the individual little pictures because they think they understand the bigger one. I guess I didn’t make that clear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: