If you consider every move made by Wilsonian policymakers who dominated the US Foreign Policy Establishment upto 2016, one common theme emerges.
Following the "Arab Spring", there was no obvious reason for the West to back an intervention into Libya (Gaddafi had been mostly quiescent for a couple of decades). They had even less cause to back overtly Islamist groups attempting to overthrow Assad in Syria. Both interventions took place under the aegis of "human rights"... but that's what the West always says. Even at that time I couldn't fully understand what core interests the Wilsonian imperialists were pursuing through these designs.
Hypothesis: it is possible that both the Libya and the Syria interventions were intended to cause exactly the type of disruption that they overwhelmingly inflicted on previously stable countries from Turkey to the UK... by loading them up with literally millions of peaceful refugees.
This has been the most debilitating blow to the EU's stability in the last decade, or possibly at any time. Vast influxes of peacefuls from the hinterlands of North Africa and the Levant have led directly to the rise of far-right nativist parties from Italy to Germany to the Netherlands to France, and concomitantly a thorough weakening of EU political and economic unity. This has happened even as the previously dominant social-democratic parties in these countries have foundered under the weight of their own reflexive dhimmitude. It has also led to a vast spate of terrorist incidents, from the German Christmas-Market truck assault to the Paris nightclub massacre to the Brussels airport bombing to the Manchester concert-hall attack... all with predictable effects on the political situations in these countries.
To continue the hypothesis: in fact, the Wilsonian backing of Islamist-fomented turmoil, leading to large movements of migrant populations and subsequent political disruption has not been limited to Europe.
Why is it that the Philippines and Thailand have been hectored and threatened for strong action against Islamist separatists on their turf? Why is it that Myanmar has been relentlessly condemned (including its leader, the former favourite of Western capitals, Aung San Suu Kyi) over its actions against the terrorist Rohingya group ARSA?
Why was India then reviled in the Western MSM for its reluctance to accept Rohingya (even though Arakan state, where they hail from, shares no border with us), and for-- of all things-- the move to formalize the NRC? Headlines in the Western MSM, particularly left-of-center outlets, screamed bloody murder with accusations that India was planning to "disenfranchise 4 million Muslims in the northeast" (completely obscuring the fact that they were never entitled to citizenship rights in the first place). Even this week, Jeffrey Gutterman of the NYTimes has come out with a hit piece entitled "India Plans Large Detention Centers for Migrants. Muslims Worry".
Even the Sri Lanka bombings, after the initial shock and sympathy, were followed up with NYT and WaPo articles "explaining" how both Muslims and Christians have been "marginalized" by Buddhist fundamentalists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, and obligatorily, by Hindu Nationalists in Modi's India.
Do we recognize the consistent contours of the global narrative being engineered here, from Western Europe to Southeast Asia?
What is it all for? What is the plan? I still can't put it all together in my head.
But this much is clear. The Wilsonian imperialists in the US... whose interests the MSM (NYT, WaPo, CNN, you know the rest) unstintingly serve... appear to have hit upon a plan of reversing the legacy of the 9/11 era. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the US was the Great Satan for Sunni Islamists... the number one enemy that had to be destroyed at all costs. This culminated in the 9/11 attacks. The initial (Neocon) American response to these attacks was military invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq... both of which drained the treasury and produced no satisfactory strategic outcome.
I believe the Wilsonian remedy has been this: stir the Islamic pot more, empower militant fundamentalists wherever possible... but make sure they are directed against everybody else but America, or at least against everybody else as much as America.
The Wilsonians have essentially internalized the idea that Islamism cannot be quelled by wars and invasion, as the Neocons had hoped... these societies will not welcome "liberators" and become democracies singing paeans of gratitude to Washington, no matter how much American blood & treasure is spent on their behalf. The next-best idea is to make sure they become much bigger problems for everybody else. Washington can then play the great benevolent mediator by triangulating Islamists against the regimes they oppose in local conflicts. This is why Hillary Clinton (and her hatchet-girl Abedin) imposed the Islamist Morsi upon Egypt; this is why they knocked over Gaddafi and tried to depose Assad; this is why their MSM mouthpieces relentlessly propagandize on behalf of Islamists throughout the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia.
Deep as usual, I can add few points which might be relevant :
This is follow on Kissinger's policy of Domino Theory, if you read now what is happening is in essence a "reverse" domino theory effect after collapse of Soviet Union. From wiki as per speech from us president Eisenhower :
Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.
At the time of end of WW II it was communism the was the common enemy that was threat to , massa and western imperial trade routes and geopolitical control. The domino theory was used used many times during Cold War to justify American intervention for precisely this thing from Vietnam to Iraq.
Idea was that any spread of influence of communism to outside buffer zone of USSR is a threat to US national security (Even if it happened via elections). Now fast forward we come to present times, even after Gaddafi gave up its Nucler program , same with Saddam was defeated there was no need or I should say threat to US to pursue the military campaigns but still they went ahead.
The real threat now is spread of Iran's radical theocracy throughout the region. Shia's who are 10 times more channelized to perform vs. sunni counterparts. IF this sreads outside the buffer zones, the control is gone for the geostrategic locations and strategic resources in that area. Same reasons for Kashmir, it is the holy grail to contain India , China, Afghanistan and Russia.
From historic perspective Mahraja ranjit Singh did conquer and rule Afghanistan and Kashmir.
Another trick that my mind plays is with Game theory, the plan is to have less players so that in the end it is easy for one to rule at the end. How this happens :
If you see porkis and western media they are all sponsoring and igniting fuel to the fire of Sikh separatism, they are good hindus are bad. Porkis love the Sikh brother nowadays, don't you think that is Irony given Sikhism was created and fought all the wars against Islam for violence , torture and killings of dharmics and non muslims.
Why now lost love simple if hinduism recedes it would be easy mop up the rest after fall of hinduism. Buddhists, Jains , Sikh are all game and easy to wind up.
Same way if islam is given space its hindus who take the brunt, so if Islam and Evangelists can team up to destroy pagans the better it is for both and then in the end its Islam vs. christianity. IF you talk to any Syrians or Iraqis lately you will see that there is a quantum jump is number of Christiaan believe followers from these places in recent times. So if they both can work something out while poaching (conversions) on non abrahmics better for them.