Unbeknownst to the general public, their elected politicians do not create the policy that binds their national destiny domestically or within the arena of geopolitics. Instead, corporate-financier funded think tanks do – teams of unelected policymakers which transcend elections, and which produce papers that then become the foundation of legislation rubber stamped by “legislators,” as well as the enumerated talking points repeated ad naseum by the corporate-media.The above opening statement in this article by Cartalucci contains a profound political insight. I've long been aware that our official government really didn't govern, but only functioned to provide a public facade of "democratic" government. For obvious reasons, what retired Professor Peter Dale Scott refers to as a "deep state" or what others refer to as a "shadow government" in the US is very well hidden by capitalist media and other ruling class propaganda institutions. Various analysts have attempted to tease out the real centers of decision-making that impacts what policies and actions are pursued, and one such important analyst is Cartalucci. Like most others, he sees capitalist think-tanks as being a primary component of the shadow government.
However, there are many such think-tanks, some obviously more important than others, and a somewhat limited set of opinions are expressed in their publications. It is clear that not all of these policy proposals are acted on. Thus, it would appear that important think-tanks such as Brookings Institution function as clearinghouse for various ruling class ideas. But this raises the question about how individual opinions are processed into actual formal policies and actions of the state? What are the organizational mechanisms that process these opinions? This is the real mystery that is still not well understood by analysts of real political power.
This is where, I think, Cartalucci sometimes makes some errors. Just because an idea or policy (often camouflaged behind deceptive rhetoric) is floated in one these important think-tanks doesn't necessarily mean that they will be acted on. He seems to think that whatever proposed action that appears in publications form Brookings Institution or Council on Foreign Relations will be implemented. Although these particular think-tanks head the list of the most influential, I don't think that every idea that is floated in their publications will necessarily be transformed into actions.
Having said that, I think it is very important to follow such articles because they reveal what the real political actors in our ruling class are thinking, and often doing. This focus on what the real Empire political actors are proposing is in sharp contrast to all the wasted time most people spend on what government officials are saying which is what ruling class media always focuses on.
Although the dramatic headline of Cartalucci's article suggests a US invasion, a careful reading of the Brookings document (PDF) suggests something else: a limited US military involvement ("low intensity warfare") along with the armies of their regional cronies to establish independent zones which will gradually dissolve the power of the Assad government. It seems to me that the policy that O'Hanlan proposes in the Brookings paper is already the operative one, and probably has been for some time. Cartalucci's assertions about the document's admissions of past US support for insurgencies is supported in the document.
What is also clear to me in the Brookings document is the imperial tone of our ruling class. They think that the US and its empire are always completely justified in intervening militarily and otherwise in the affairs of other countries. We can even spy on other governments. This is so because...err...well, we are a special nation, we're an "exceptional" nation. Obama said so himself.
