May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
From Military-Industrial Complex to Media-Military-Industrial Complex: Review of literature
a
The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military
industrial complex.
If you want to call it anything, you can call it the ‘military [industrial] media,’ The
military makes money by making war;
they buy the media to promote war... The military industrial media in the United States is depending
on being able to speak
to a captive audience of uninformed viewers… The military controls the media because they own them.-
John Bosnitch
Due to the size the introduction was moves to a separate page
Abstract
If the ability to anticipate future dangers for the nation is the mark of a truly great president
then Dwight D. Eisenhower would be the greatest president of the XX century. But because he appointed such a devious person as
Allen Dulles as the head of CIA his record is very mixed and contradictory.
In any case, he was the last Republican
president to deliver broad-based prosperity. During his presidency, the gains from growth were widely
shared and the incomes of the poorest fifth actually grew faster than the incomes of the top fifth.
As a result, America became more equal than ever before or since. Under Ike, the marginal tax rate on
the richest Americans reached 91%. Eisenhower also presided over the creation of the interstate
highway system – the largest infrastructure project in American history — as well as the nation’s
biggest expansion of public schools. It’s no coincidence that when Eisenhower was president, over a
third of all private sector workers were unionized. Ike can’t be credited for this but at least he didn’t
try to stop it or legitimize firing striking workers, as did Ronald Reagan.
At the same time Dwight D. Eisenhower was an architect of the USA "deep state" and subverting by
deep state of the remnants of constitutional republic that survived WWII. As part of his own
contribution to the creation of military-industrial complex, Eisenhower had overseen the creation of
both the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, and a "high-risk, high-gain"
research unit called the Advanced
Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, that later added the word "Defense" to its name and became
DARPA.
The backbone of military industrial complex is not Pentagon
(although it is definitely the important part of it). It is three letter agencies such as CIA, FBI, NSA and ONI.
David Talbot's book The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government fingers
CIA director Allen Dulles as the person who plotted and directed the
JFK assassination, and portrays him as a psychopath
who managed to rise to the high echelons of power. Unfortunately, the book has problems with history,
as explained by David M. Barrett
in this review. And the story of rise of power and influence of CIA,
FBI and NSA is the key part of the story of the US military industrial complex. With the key personal role of Eisenhower in
this rise. In other words he was the actual creator of "regime change" machine within the CIA (America's Legacy
of Regime Change by Stephen Kinzer):
It was not only the Dulles brothers, however, who brought the United States into the
regime-change era in the early 1950s. Eisenhower himself was a fervent advocate of covert
action. Officially his defense and security policy, which he called the "New Look," rested on
two foundations, a smaller army and an increased nuclear arsenal. In reality, the "New Look"
had a third foundation: covert action. Eisenhower may have been the last president to believe
that no one would ever discover what he sent the CIA to do. With a soldier's commitment to
keeping secrets, he never admitted that he had ordered covert regime-change operations, much
less explained why he favored them.
BTW it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who appointed Dulles brothers to CIA and State Department creating
the most dangerous and reckless tandem the USA history ever known and putting the last nail into the
coffin of constitutional republic. It was his administration that organized coupe on Iran deposing
legitimate government and installing a puppet regime, the prolog of many color revolutions accomplished
the USA ever since (including Chile, and many other Latin American republics, and later the xUSSR space).
See The Brothers John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War Stephen Kinzer.
"All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give
their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately,
the general population goes along with the idea... That's the issue that I've been exploring:
How did the Republic turn into the Empire ... and how does a democracy become a dictatorship?
"
"... "The border has become a rights-free zone for Americans who have to travel," Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) said in a statement given to Boland at the time. "The founders never could have imagined that the government would be able to sift through your entire digital life, from pictures to emails and even where you've been, just because you decide to take a vacation or travel for work." ..."
At last a victory for citizens. For nearly 20 years, the federal government has used and
abused the memory of the 9/11 attacks to expand its law enforcement authorities at the nation's
airports, even if that has meant broaching one of our most sacrosanct constitutional freedoms:
the right against illegal search and seizure, otherwise known as the 4th Amendment.
On Tuesday, a federal court in Boston ruled that the
Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can no longer
detain Americans coming back over the border to search their laptops, cell phones and other
electronic devices, without cause. One would think this is a no-brainer, but the number of
these incidents has actually escalated to over 33,000 last year -- nearly four times as many as
the previous three years,
according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
The ruling came in a lawsuit, Alasaad v. McAleenan , filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and ACLU of
Massachusetts, on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without
individualized suspicion at U.S. ports of entry.
International travelers returning to the United States have reported numerous cases of
abusive searches in recent months. While searching through the phone of Zainab Merchant, a
plaintiff in the Alasaad case, a border agent knowingly rifled through privileged
attorney-client communications. An immigration officer at Boston Logan Airport
reportedly searched an incoming Harvard freshman's cell phone and laptop, reprimanded the
student for friends' social media postings expressing views critical of the U.S. government,
and denied the student entry into the country following the search.
According to EFF, border officers "must now demonstrate individualized suspicion of illegal
contraband before they can search a traveler's device."
TAC's Barbara Boland reported on this over the summer . The number of electronic devices
accessed in 2018 was six times the number in 2012, suggesting that this is not only a
post-9/11 issue, but that somewhere along the line the Trump Administration signaled to these
agencies, which are all under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, that it was
gloves-off at the border -- even for American citizens. Lest you think this is just an
extension of the president's tough illegal immigration policies, be warned, many of the folks
targeted were typical international visitors and U.S. citizens -- think students, journalists,
academics, doctors -- and not travelers to this country for the first time. And they were
treated like they were coming into the Third World. From Boland:
One person detailed to Amnesty
International how she was selected for secondary screening at the border, locked in a
cramped, narrow concrete cell, and subjected to an invasive body search. Her requests for a
lawyer and medical treatment were denied. The supervisor told her she would be held
indefinitely.
When she told him that she is an American citizen, he replied: "The Fourth Amendment
doesn't apply here. We can hold you for as long as we want to."
She was released after four hours.
Journalist Seth Harp wrote a similarly
disturbing story about what happened when he was singled out for a "secondary screening" at
the Austin Airport in Texas. CBP agents pried him for information about what he was writing,
his sources, his reporting as a war correspondent, and his discussions with his editors.
"The border has become a rights-free zone for Americans who have to travel," Senator Ron
Wyden (D-Oregon) said in a statement given to Boland at the time. "The founders never could
have imagined that the government would be able to sift through your entire digital life, from
pictures to emails and even where you've been, just because you decide to take a vacation or
travel for work."
Let's hope that Tuesday's order fixes that -- though it might take a Supreme Court ruling to
put an end to it for good.
Any lingering doubts about Obama's status as an abject puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission
ended this morning when the withered mummy of imperialism himself appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe* to campaign for Obama, urged on
by his own moronic daughter, Mika Brzezinski, an Obama groupie and sycophant.
Zbigniew, a low-level Polish aristocrat whose life has been devoted to hatred for Russia, lauded Obama for his 2002 speech opposing
the Iraq war, saying that he himself was the source of Obama's arguments back then - thus confirming Obama's long-term status as
his puppet, which probably began in 1981-1983, when Obama was a student at Columbia University, and Zbig was directing the anti-Russian
institute.
The aging revanchist showed all the misogynism of his szachta origins with a scurrilous attack on Sen. Clinton as a mere housewife,
a Mamie Eisenhower running against charismatic a JFK played by Zbig's own Manchurian candidate, and as a woman whose foreign policy
experience was worth as much as that of Zbig's own travel agent.
Zbig, who was kept in the closet for many months during the Carter administration because of his hideous Dr. Strangelove persona,
portrayed Obama as a peace candidate who wanted to end the Iraq war and usher in peace in the Middle East. Zbig is an infamous Cold
War hawk who has managed to re-invent himself in the eyes of some dupes by opposing the Iraq adventure, mainly because it is bad
for imperialism.
Zbig did not mention that the reason he wants to downplay certain aspects of US aggression in the Middle East is to free up resources
for use in the much bigger and more dangerous adventures which the Trilateral Commission is now directing.
Zbig is the mastermind of the Kosovo secession under KLA terrorist auspices, a gambit against Serbia and Russia to prepare a coming
Operation Barbarossa II against Moscow. With the help of his son Mark Brzezinski, another top foreign policy controller of Obama,
Zbig is also behind the new Euromissiles crisis involving US ABM installations in Poland. Zbig is the enforcer for the new CIA policy
of killing Pakistanis (as "terrorists") without consulting the government of that country, a nuclear power twice as big as Iran.
Most dangerous of all, Zbig is the obvious mastermind of the massive destabilization of China now ongoing, starting with the CIA/MI-6
Tibet insurrection, which has placed the US on a collision course with China, a superpower with 1.4 billion people and thermonuclear
weapons which can strike US cities, a far cry from the helpless and defenseless targets preferred by the neocons. It is an open secret
that Zbig intends to attempt a color revolution or CIA people power coup in China under the cover of the Beijing Olympics later this
year. He may also make the Taiwan crisis explode. The dangers of these lunatic policies are infinitely worse than anything that could
ever come out of the Middle East.
Senator Jay Rockefeller and Trilateral/BIlderberger boss Joseph Nye are also actively campaigning for Obama. Nye is the theoretician
of "soft power," a new form of imperialist aggression based on economic warfare, subversion, deception, and people power coups. They
want Obama to mobilize soft power to give a face lift to US imnperialism.
Brzezinski's goal is confrontation with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the main world center for resistance to US-UK global
domination.
Anti-war activists are still fixated on Iran, but not Brzezinski is not - his target is China, TWENTY times bigger than Iran,
with ICBMs ready to launch, followed by Russia, the world's biggest nuclear power. Such confused activists need to focus on stopping
the next war - the final global showdown with Pakistan, China, and Russia. That means rejecting Brzezinski's puppet candidate Obama.
"... The Polish born Brzezinski put the historic blood-feud of his mother country ahead of the interests of the United States. He openly opposed Nixon and Ford's policy of detente and orchestrated the use American power to arm and fund all those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union. ..."
"... This became most apparent when he decided to use US might to fund, arm and train the Arab Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Among the fighters Brzezinski's policy helped to arm was Osama bin-Laden, the founder of the Salafist terrorist group al-Qaeda. The group was later blamed for orchestrating and executing the September 11 terrorist atrocities in the United States. ..."
"... Brzezinski was happy to ally with blood soaked jihadists in order to topple the secular, modern government of Afghanistan, for the simple reason that the government was a Soviet ally. ..."
"... Brzezinski's jihadists took over the country in the 1990s and famously executed and then mutilated the corpse of Afghanistan's pro-Soviet President Dr. Mohammad Najibullah in 1996. Many blame the Brzezinski authored policies in Afghanistan for unleashing the plague of jihadist terrorism throughout the wider world. ..."
"... Brzezinski's time in the White House was limited to the single term of Jimmy Carter, but many of his policies lived long after his formal period in power. ..."
Richard Nixon had more foreign policy achievements that just about any modern American President. These achievements however,
have generally been overshadowed by Nixon's scandal plagued White House.
Among his most important achievements was engaging in
detente with the Soviet Union. Nixon's de-escalation of tensions with Moscow penultimately led to the signing of the Helsinki Accords
in 1975, wherein America and its allies and also non-aligned states of Europe agreed to respect the borders and sovereignty of existing
states, including that of the Soviet Union and her allies. The Helsinki Accords affirmed a renunciation of violence as a means of
settling disputes and forced signatories to respect the right of self-determination among peoples.
This was a rare moment when the US admitted that the Cold War could not be won and that engagement and peaceful dialogue was preferable
to threats against the Soviet superpower.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected the President of the United States after Nixon's former Vice-President Gerald Ford, failed to
win an America hungry for change on the domestic front.
While Jimmy Carter is often remembered as a man of peace, his Presidency was anything but peaceful. The reason for this was the
power behind the throne, Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The Polish born Brzezinski put the historic blood-feud of his mother country ahead of the interests of the United States. He openly
opposed Nixon and Ford's policy of detente and orchestrated the use American power to arm and fund all those who sought to undermine
the Soviet Union.
This became most apparent when he decided to use US might to fund, arm and train the Arab Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Among the
fighters Brzezinski's policy helped to arm was Osama bin-Laden, the founder of the Salafist terrorist group al-Qaeda. The group
was later blamed for orchestrating and executing the September 11 terrorist atrocities in the United States.
Brzezinski was happy to ally with blood soaked jihadists in order to topple the secular, modern government of Afghanistan, for
the simple reason that the government was a Soviet ally.
Brzezinski's jihadists took over the country in the 1990s and famously executed and then mutilated the corpse of Afghanistan's
pro-Soviet President Dr. Mohammad Najibullah in 1996. Many blame the Brzezinski authored policies in Afghanistan for unleashing the
plague of jihadist terrorism throughout the wider world.
Brzezinski's time in the White House was limited to the single term of Jimmy Carter, but many of his policies lived long after
his formal period in power.
Throughout the rest of his life, Brzezinski continued to vocally advocate for policies designed to cripple Russia, including the
expansion of NATO into eastern Europe.
He was a strong supporter of the 2014 coup against the legitimate Ukrainian government and more recently said that the Russian
Federation would break up. Furthermore, he said that the US must help those wanting to break it up, irrespective of who they are.
He continued to advocate sanctions against Russia until his dying day, in spite of the fact that the sanctions ended up hurting his
native Poland more than the Russian Federation he sought to destroy.
Brzezinski was a deeply violent and hateful man. He was also dishonest, he told the last Shah of Iran that the US would give him
America's full backing, knowing well that the White House was divided on the issue.
He was a man who brought ancient hatreds, hatreds which long pre-dated the existence of the United States, into the heart of American
policy making.
At the age of 89, Brzezinski is dead. Even if he lived another hundred years, he would never see his dream, the death of Russia.
Russia remains alive and well and in this sense, perhaps he died knowing that his entire reason for being was a failure.
If AMLO were to invite the Americans into Mexico, he would be lynched. Few Americans are
aware of how much the United States is hated in Latin America, and for that matter in most of
the world. They don't know of the long series of military interventions, brutal dictators
imposed and supported, and economic rapine. Somoza, Pinochet, the Mexican-American War,
detachment of Panama from Colombia, bombardment of Veracruz, Patton's incursion–the list
could go on for pages. The Mexican public would look upon American troops not as saviors but as
invaders. Which they would be.
The incursion would not defeat the cartels, for several reasons that trump would do well to
ponder. To begin with, America starts its wars by overestimating its own powers,
underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the kind of war on which it is embarking. The
is exactly what Trump seems to be doing.
He probably thinks of Mexicans as just gardeners and rapists and we have all these beautiful
advanced weapons and beautiful drones and things with blinking lights. A pack of rapists armed
with garden trowels couldn't possibly be difficult to defeat by the US. I mean, get serious:
Dope dealers against the Marines? A cakewalk.
You know, like Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. That sort of cakewalk.
Let's think what an expedition against the narcos would entail, what it would face.
To begin with, Mexico is a huge country of 127 million souls with the narcos spread unevenly
across it. You can't police a nation that size with a small force, or even with a large force.
A (preposterous) million soldiers would be well under one percent of the population. Success
would be impossible even if that population helped you. Which it wouldn't.
"... Peter Strzok was interviewed on 19 July 2017 by the FBI and, according to his affidavit, pretended that he was asked on the 24th of January 2017 to interview General Flynn. He implied this was a last minute request. But as noted in the preceding paragraph, which is based on an interview of Strzok's mistress, Lisa Page, a meeting took place the day before to orchestrate the ambush of General Flynn. ..."
"... What is truly remarkable is that Peter Strzok stated the following, which exonerates Flynn of the charges in the indictment cited above: Strzok and Pientka both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying. Flynn struck Strzok as "bright, but not profoundly sophisticated." ..."
"... In fact, as noted by Sidney Powell, "the FBI and DOJ wrote an internal memo dated January 30, 2017, exonerating Mr. Flynn of acting as an "agent of Russia;" and, they all knew there was no Logan Act violation." ..."
"... The real problem for the Government's fraudulent case against Flynn are the 302s. There should only be one 302. Not at least four versions. The FBI protocol is to enter the 302 into the FBI Sentinel system within five days of the interview. In other words, the original 302 should have been put on the record on the 29th of January. But that original 302 is MISSING. The prosecutors claim they cannot find it. ..."
"... But the prosecutors finally did provide the defense, after repeated requests, multiple copies of 302s. They dated as follows--10 February 2017, 11 February 2017. 14 February 2017 and 15 February 2017. WTF??? This alone is prima facie evidence that something crooked was afoot. ..."
"... The final 302--dated 15 February 2017--painted General Flynn in the worst possible light. The "facts" of this 302 are not supported by the notes taken by Agents Strzok and Pientka. The conclusion is simple--the FBI fabricated a case against General Flynn. We now wait to see if Judge Sullivan will acknowledge this crooked conduct and exonerate the good General. Justice demands it. ..."
"... Poor George Popadopoulos, also "bright, but not profoundly sophisticated.", also had lawyers who rolled over to the FBI. If you read George's book, "Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump", the methods used on Flynn sound familiar. ..."
"... If the evidence provided by the defence in the Flynn case is even only a partial example of the capabilities and proclivities of the FBI, then how many other poor schmucks have been convicted and jailed unjustly at the hands of this organisation? ..."
"... The answer, given the size of the organisation must be : "thousands". The remedy is obvious and compelling if you want to remain something like a first world democracy. ..."
"... So instead of Flynn burning the agency down, they did just the opposite and got to him first. Just like Sen Schumer warned Trump: don't take on the IC, because they have six ways against Sunday to take you down. ..."
"... Maybe Flynn' s alleged post-inauguration audit plans is what triggered Brennan to get Obama to secretly keep his eyes on Flynn - maybe that was the second tier secret access they wanted, not necessarily Trump himself? ..."
"... Survival in DC is existential - my own in-house observation during the Watergate years. ..."
"... However, IMO the far more telling issue of the depths of IC's Coup effort. Are the exploits of Halper, Mifsud, MI6-CIA link. Which began back in 2015. This gives the impression, Flynn was being targeted for career destruction. Solely as retaliation for his departure from the Obama Administration, coupled with Flynn's open opposition to policies of Obama-Brennan (Iran-Syria-Libya). This took place way before he agreed to the NSA post with President Trump. ..."
"... Why did FLynn not have the Secret Service Detail arrest Sztrok and company on the spot for violating US security CFRs by knowing such conversations took place and knowing the contents thereof with out appropriate security clearances?? ..."
"... Many things about Spygate have puzzled me. The response by Trump after becoming POTUS to all the machinations by Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rosenstein, et al has been baffling. It is like he does not understand the powers of his office. And after he learned about the covert action action against his campaign and him, to then staff his administration with folks who were in cahoots with the putschists is frankly bizarre. ..."
"... ........ "CrowdStrike, the cyber-security company that is involved in all this over and over again, is a an American company founded by a Ukrainian, Dmitri Alperovitch, who is extremely anti-Russia and who delights in implicating Russia in the DNC hacking event that probably did not happen......" ..."
Sidney Powell, General Michael Flynn's magnificent lawyer, is in the process of destroying
the bogus case that Robert Mueller and his gang of legal thugs tried to sneak past appropriate
judicial review. To help you understand what she is doing we must first go back and review the
indictment of Flynn and then look at what Ms. Powell, aka Honey Badger, has forced the
prosecutors to admit.
Here are the nuts and bolts of the indictment
On or about January 24, 2017, defendant MICHAEL T. FLYNN did willfully and knowingly make
materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations . . . to agents of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation that:
(i) On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia's Ambassador
to the United States ("Russian Ambassador") to refrain from escalating the situation in
response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day; and
FLYNN did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to
moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.
(ii) On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the
vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution; and that the Russian
Ambassador subsequently never described_to FLYNN Russia's response to his request.
Let me make a couple of observations before we dig into the notes and the 302 that FBI
Agents Strzok and Pientka wrote up during and following their interview of Michael Flynn on
January 24, 2017. First, Michael Flynn did nothing wrong or inappropriate in speaking to
Russia's Ambassador Kislyak. He was doing his job as an incoming National Security Advisor to
President Trump. Second, not "recalling" what Ambassador Kislyak said (or did not say) on 22
December is not lying. Third, even if Flynn did ask the Russian Ambassador on the 29th of
December to "refrain from escalating the situation" in response to the U.S. sanctions imposed
by Barack Hussein Obama, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is wise counsel
intended to defuse a situation.
Now, here is where the FBI, especially Agents Strzok and Pientka, are in so much trouble.
The day prior to the "interview" of General Flynn the FBI plotters met to discuss strategy.
According to Sidney Powell:
January 23, the day before the interview, the upper echelon of the FBI met to orchestrate it
all. Deputy Director McCabe, General Counsel James Baker, , Lisa Page, Strzok, David Bowdich,
Trish Anderson, and Jen Boone strategized to talk with Mr. Flynn in such a way as to keep from
alerting him from understanding that he was being interviewed in a criminal investigation of
which he was the target. (Ex.12). Knowing they had no basis for an investigation,6 they
deliberately decided not to notify DOJ for fear DOJ officials would follow protocol and notify
White House Counsel.
Peter Strzok was interviewed on 19 July 2017 by the FBI and, according to his affidavit,
pretended that he was asked on the 24th of January 2017 to interview General Flynn. He implied
this was a last minute request. But as noted in the preceding paragraph, which is based on an
interview of Strzok's mistress, Lisa Page, a meeting took place the day before to orchestrate
the ambush of General Flynn.
What is truly remarkable is that Peter Strzok stated the following, which exonerates Flynn
of the charges in the indictment cited above: Strzok and Pientka both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not
think he was lying. Flynn struck Strzok as "bright, but not profoundly sophisticated."
The fact that the FBI Agents Strzok and Pientka did not to show General Flynn the transcript
of his calls to refresh his recollection, nor did they confront him directly if he did not
remember, exposes this plot as a contrived scenario to entrap Michael Flynn rather than a
legitimate, legally founded investigation.
In fact, as noted by Sidney Powell, "the FBI and DOJ wrote an internal memo dated January
30, 2017, exonerating Mr. Flynn of acting as an "agent of Russia;" and, they all knew there was
no Logan Act violation."
The notes taken by Agents Strzok and Pientka during their interview of Michael Flynn are
damning for the FBI. These notes are Exhibits 9 and 10 in the sur sureply filed by Sidney
Powell on 1 November 2019. (I wrote recently on the fact that the FBI/DOJ mislabeled the notes
from this interview--see here). Neither Strzok nor Pientka recorded any observation that Flynn
lied about his contacts with Kislyak. Neither wrote down anything supporting the indictment by
the Mueller crowd that "Flynn lied." To the contrary, Strzok swore under oath that he did not
believe Flynn was lying.
The real problem for the Government's fraudulent case against Flynn are the 302s. There
should only be one 302. Not at least four versions. The FBI protocol is to enter the 302 into
the FBI Sentinel system within five days of the interview. In other words, the original 302
should have been put on the record on the 29th of January. But that original 302 is MISSING.
The prosecutors claim they cannot find it.
But the prosecutors finally did provide the defense, after repeated requests, multiple
copies of 302s. They dated as follows--10 February 2017, 11 February 2017. 14 February 2017 and
15 February 2017. WTF??? This alone is prima facie evidence that something crooked was
afoot.
The final 302--dated 15 February 2017--painted General Flynn in the worst possible light.
The "facts" of this 302 are not supported by the notes taken by Agents Strzok and Pientka. The
conclusion is simple--the FBI fabricated a case against General Flynn. We now wait to see if
Judge Sullivan will acknowledge this crooked conduct and exonerate the good General. Justice
demands it.
These are not my facts. They are the facts based on documents submitted on the record to
Judge Sullivan. I find it shocking that no journalist has had the energy or interest to cover
this. Just one more reminder of the putrid state of journalism and investigative reporting. The
charges levied against General Flynn by the Mueller prosecutors are without foundation. That is
the stark conclusion facing any honest reader of the documents/exhibits uncovered by the Honey
Badger. This kind of conduct by the FBI is just one more proof to support Colonel Lang's wise
observation that this institution, along with the CIA, should be burned to the ground and new
institutions erected in their stead that are committed to upholding the Constitution and
preserving the rights of the individual.
General Flynn was the National Security Advisor to the President. Among his duties he would
be expected to talk with foreign officials, including Russians, perhaps especially Russians.
My question is what was the predicating evidence that gave rise to opening a criminal case
with Flynn as the subject at all. What was the substantive violation; and why was there a
need to convene a meeting of high level Bureau official to discuss an ambush interview. What
was there to talk about in this meeting? My suspicion is that they expected, or hoped, at the
outset to leverage Flynn against Trump which makes the scheme worse, much worse
Re: predicate - IIRC, this is where the work of the FBI/CIA "ratfucker" Stefan Halper was
instrumental, having propagated the bogus claim that scholar Svetlana Lokhova was a Russian
agent with whom Gen. Flynn was having a sexual relationship.
There was a simpler time when even the least accomplished FBI Agent would have known enough
to ask Mr Halper for the circumstantial details as to how he acquired the news that Flynn had
any relationship at all with Lokhova, let alone a sexual relationship, who told him, how did
he know, why was he telling him, when, etc. The same questions should have been resolved with
respect to Lokhova before entertaining a conclusion that she was a Russian Agent of some
sort. Finally, even if the allegation against Flynn had been true, which had not been
established, and the allegation against Lokhova had been true, which as far as I know had not
been established, the Agents should have laid those cards before Flynn from the outset as the
reason he was being interviewed. If during the course of the interview he became suspect of
having done something illegal, he should have been told what it was and given all his rights,
including the right to an attorney. If the Agents suspected he was lying in matters of such
significant import that he would be charged for lying, they should have been given a specific
warning that lying was a prosecutable offense. That would have been playing it down the
middle. Since none of this appears to have been done, the question is why not. The leading
suspicion is that the carefully considered intent was to take down Flynn by any means
necessary to advance another purpose.
There are two separate issues: The Russian-Flynn Spying connection was established in London
back in 2015. IMO using Halper as an echo-chamber for Brennan's collusion fabrications. LTG
Flynn at that time was being set-up, for a retaliatory career strike(TS Clearance issues, I
submit).
The Flynn Perjury case was made in Jan 17 in DC, by the Secret Society, Comey, McCabe,
Yates, Strozk and the unwitting, SA Joe Pientka (hopefully). This trap was drafted by Comey,
specifically to take advantage of the newly elected President's inexperienced Cabinet, the WH
in-chaos. Chaos reportedly generated by a well timed Leak to the media. Which suggested that
LTG Flynn had Lied to VP Pence.
This FBI leak, now had the WH in a tail spin. Given the collusion beliefs at that time, had
VP Pence admitted that acting NSA Flynn, did in fact speak with the Russian Kislyak re:
Sanctions. The media would've screamed, the call demonstrated Russian Collusion.
Since VP Pence stated, he did not know that NSA Flynn had discussed the Sanctions with
Kislyak. The media created the image that Flynn had lied to the VP...
This was the "Pretext" which Defense Council Powell referred to. This is the opportune
moment, at which Comey sprang and later bragged about. Stating publicly that he took
advantage of a inexperienced Trump oval office in turmoil. Claiming he decided "Screw IT"
I'll send two agents in to question Flynn.
Without going through FBI-WH protocols. Because Comey knew that protocols would alert the
entire WH Staff. Making the FBI's hopes for a Perjury Trap against NSA Flynn, impossible.
Accordingly, AAG Yates and McCabe then both set the stage, with calls to WH Counsel
McGahn. Where they threatened charges against Flynn under the nonexistent "1799" Logan Act.
As well as suggesting that Flynn was now vulnerable to Extortion by Russian agents. Since the
Russians knew he had lied to the VP.
As Powell points out, by 24JAN17, the date of the Flynn interview. The entire world, knew
Flynn had Lied. Making the extortion threat rather bogus. In fact reports stated, at that
time even WHC McGahn had asked either Yates or McCabe (don't recall which). Why would the FBI
give a damn, what the NSA had told the VP? However the Bureau persisted and they won out.
McGahn is reported to have told Flynn, that he should sit down with these two FBI
agents...
Once Flynn sat down and gave a statement. FWIW, I think Andy McCabe was going to find a
Flynn misstatement or create one. Sufficient to justify the 1001 charge. It appears as though
McCabe took the later option and simply Created one.
My question is does some combination of incompetence and bubblethink naivete explain how at
the outset they could have gone all in on the Brennan/Halper information or did they just
cynically exploit the opportunity that had been manufactured in order to take it to the next
level -Trump. Taking it to the next level appears to be what drove the Papadopolis case where
similar procedural abuses occurred.
Poor George Popadopoulos, also "bright, but not profoundly sophisticated.", also had lawyers
who rolled over to the FBI. If you read George's book, "Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the
Plot to Bring Down President Trump", the methods used on Flynn sound familiar.
Since George only served two weeks, I wonder if it would be worth while for him to tackle
the FBI again?
PS When the FBI says you are not "sophisticated", does that mean that they view you as
easy to trick?
Papadopolis signed "confession" equally odd: string of disconnected facts topped off with
what appears almost to be an added "conclusion" allegedly based on these irrelevant string of
factual statements that damn him into eternity as well.
Was the conclusionary" confession" added later, or was it shoved in front of him to sign
as a unwitting last minute alteration to a previously agreed set of facts is pror statements
he had already agreed were true? Just me, but when I read this "confession some time ago, it
simply did not pass the smell test.
The signed "confession: basically appeared to be accusing Papadopolus and by extension the
Trump campaign of violating the Logan Act - violating Obama's exclusive right to conduct
foreign policy.
(A SCHIFF PARAPHRAse)
Yes I was in Russia
Yes, I ate pork chops for dinner
Yes. I endeavored to meet with Russian individuals
Etc - benign
Etc - benign
Confession - al of the above are true
Kicker: Final Statement I INTENTIONALLY MET WITH TOP LEVEL RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AGENTS TO
DISCUSS US FOREIGN POLICY
Papadopoulos' "lies" rest on subjective interpretation. For instance, one of the "lies"
consist of a referral to Mifsud as "a nobody". A second "lie" is based on when he officially
joined the Trump campaign: George P says it was when he first went to Washington and attended
a campaign meeting, while the indictment says no it was when he participated in the phone
call which invited him on board (a difference of a couple of weeks). It is very very thin
gruel.
I wonder if SST is missing the bigger picture. If the evidence provided by the defence in the Flynn case is even only a partial example
of the capabilities and proclivities of the FBI, then how many other poor schmucks have been
convicted and jailed unjustly at the hands of this organisation?
The answer, given the size of the organisation must be : "thousands". The remedy is
obvious and compelling if you want to remain something like a first world democracy.
How many others have there been? The genesis of the USA v Flynn, was a CIA-FBI hybrid. An
international Co-Intel operation, aimed at targeting Donald Trump. As such "the Case" was
initiated from the top down, under the secrecy of a T/S Counter-Intelligence operation.
These are not the normal beginnings of a Criminal matter. Which originates with a filed
criminal Complaint, from the ground-up.
In short all of the checks and balances our federal statutes mandate. Steps where AUSA's,
Bureau ASAC's and District Judges must review and approve. Even before convening a GJ. Were
intentionally overridden or perjured by a select society of the highest officials inside DoJ.
As such there were no higher authorities nor any of the Higher Loyalty for Jim Comey to seek
his resolution from.
That is not the normal investigative process. This was a deliberate criminal act to target
an innocent man (actually several innocent men). As such IMO, the associated political
pressure, all of which was self-inflicted. Was the force which brought about the criminality
on the part of Comey, McCabe, et al.
So, FWIW, you don't see those levels of personal involvement in criminal investigations.
The classic, where the murder victim's brother is the town Sheriff. Hence you don't see cases
of innocent people being dragged off to the Dungeons. Certainly not intentionally and not in
the thousands, anyway.
On another blog, a commenter claimed Flynn was going to program audit the entire IC - money
spent and results obtained.
So instead of Flynn burning the agency down, they did just the opposite and got to him
first. Just like Sen Schumer warned Trump: don't take on the IC, because they have six ways
against Sunday to take you down.
Maybe Flynn' s alleged post-inauguration audit plans is what triggered Brennan to get
Obama to secretly keep his eyes on Flynn - maybe that was the second tier secret access they
wanted, not necessarily Trump himself?
Survival in DC is existential - my own in-house observation during the Watergate
years.
The reports I've read tell of a long and sorted history between LTG Flynn, John Brennan, DNI
Clapper and Obama. Some of the stories did remind me of the SST suggestion to, "Burn it all
down". The General also supported this idea that DoD, should be the lead agency in the IC and
CA. Since must of their modern day activity, does tend to be kinetic...
So LTG Flynn has made enemies in the Obama administration, CIA and DNI.
However, IMO the far more telling issue of the depths of IC's Coup effort. Are the
exploits of Halper, Mifsud, MI6-CIA link. Which began back in 2015. This gives the
impression, Flynn was being targeted for career destruction. Solely as retaliation for his
departure from the Obama Administration, coupled with Flynn's open opposition to policies of
Obama-Brennan (Iran-Syria-Libya). This took place way before he agreed to the NSA post with
President Trump.
Then there's also LTG Flynn's direct rebuttal of DDFBI Andy McCabe. Seems McCabe was
involved in a Bureau OPR dust-up over sexual harassment allegations. The female SA worked CT
and was an acquaintance of Gen Flynn's. Flynn then made a public statement of support for the
Agent. Which was reported to have angered Andy. Sydney Powell, suggests that McCabe was
overhead to have said words to the effect or, First we F--- Flynn, then we F--- Trump. During
one of his 7th floor, Secret Society meetings.
Again all of this happened, before General Flynn was Candidate Trump's NSA Designee. So
the Six ways to Sunday, warning does resonate re: LTG Flynn as well.
In my experience in the US armed forces.... having a top secret crypto clearance...
And later.... as a federal investigator...
I distinctly remember that conversations between the White house, particularly the
president and his national security chief are "top secret -- eyes only for the president"
So.....
Why did FLynn not have the Secret Service Detail arrest Sztrok and company on the spot for
violating US security CFRs by knowing such conversations took place and knowing the contents
thereof with out appropriate security clearances??
"Why did FLynn not have the Secret Service Detail arrest Sztrok and company on the spot for
violating US security CFRs.."
Many things about Spygate have puzzled me. The response by Trump after becoming POTUS to
all the machinations by Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rosenstein, et al has been baffling. It is
like he does not understand the powers of his office. And after he learned about the covert
action action against his campaign and him, to then staff his administration with folks who
were in cahoots with the putschists is frankly bizarre.
Does anyone have any explanation for the actions or inactions of Trump & Flynn?
"Does anyone have any explanation for the actions or inactions of Trump & Flynn?"
I have no comment relative to Flynn, but, in regards to Trump, IMO, Trump is stupid.
First, a little background. I did vote for Trump. I did have an hatred for national
politics ever since the Cheney "presidency". In that period, I was a dissident with a very
minor voice. But, I did study, as best as I could, the Bush (Cheney) and the Obama
presidency. It was reasonably clear that president's. didn't count. IMO the real power lay
with: a handful of Senate leaders, the CIA, the bureaucracy, and the powerful families that
controlled the major multi-national corporations, such as, Exxon Mobile. The preceding
constituted a powerful oligarchy that controlled the U.S. A dictatorship of sorts.
Trump had two major objectives for his presidency: MAGA and "drain the swamp". I concurred
with both objectives. After six months of the Trump presidency, and after observing his
choice of appointments and his actions, I concluded that he was a high school baseball player
trying to compete with the major leagues. He didn't know what he was doing (and, still
doesn't).
At that time, I concluded that if Trump really wanted to install MAGA and "drain the
swamp" he should have concluded way before putting his hat in the ring, that the only way to
accomplish his objective was to foster a coup after becoming president. Prior to his
presidency, he would had to select a team which would be his appointees and develop a plan.
After becoming president, he would have to ignore Congress and put his people in place
including in the DOD. The team would stay in control regardless of Congress' views.
Of course, this is a dictatorship, but is this any less obnoxious to our current oligarchs
dictatorship.
You're not wrong in criticizing Trump's personnel choices and inaction. When he entered
office he was warned about the SES/SIS holdovers and the need to get his own people in place.
He ignored that advice and is suffering the consequences. Trump played a character on TV of
being a shrewd, tough judge of talent and ability. In reality, he is a bit of a goofball.
That said, his basic policy positions are solid with respect to putting America first,
enforcing immigration laws, and disengaging from the foreign adventurism that has defined US
foreign policy for the last 75 years.
My hope is that he now finally recognizes the threat.
I prefer thinking of Donald Trump as a World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Famer as it fits
the context of what we are seeing more precise. Staged drama, personality pitted against
personality, all a great spectacle.
If it makes the denizens of DC fall on their fainting couches with the image all the
better.
Isn't Donald Trump suffering the same problem Jimmy Carter had that as a DC outsider he
isn't able hire talent and the establishment has made it clear that a position in the Trump
administration is a career killer?
Democrat's politics of personal destruction made it virtually impossible for Trump to hire or
appoint the requisite people for the task you described. RINO's wouldn't touch him and
Democrats were hell bent for revenge at any costs.
Amazing he did as well as he has done so far - considering his election was so toxic to
any possible insiders who could have offered the necessary experience to warn him where the
third rails were located.
Give him another four years and full control of GOP House and Senate back - this country
needs his energy and resoluteness to finally get the real work done. Patriots at every level
need to apply for appointed positions.
BTW: I was a rabid no-Trumper up to election night. Then Trump became my President. I have
not looked back.
Draining the Swamp can't be accomplished by hiring within the beltway or hiring any long-term
Democrat or Republican operative including members of Congress.
Trump should have recognized when he learned that his transition team was being spied on
that he had to hire people who believed in his agenda and had no ties to the Swamp.
By hiring folks like Haley, Pompeo, Bolton, Coats, Rosenstein, Wray, etc and not cleaning
house by firing entire swathes of the bureaucracy and then not using the powers of his office
to declassify but instead passing the buck on to Rosenstein, Sessions and Barr and only
tweeting witch hunt he has enabled the Swamp to run circles around him.
IMO, he is where he is because of his inability to put together a coherent team that
believes in his agenda and is willing to fight the Swamp with everything thy've got.
@joekovalski98: Pres. Trump came into office being very familiar with the intelligence
operation against him.
Enter Admiral (ret) Mike Rogers who travelled secretly without approval by Clapper to brief
the president of the spy operation.
Trump immediately move his administration to NJ.
Rogers and Flynn go back many years as Rogers was a protégé of Flynn. They
both extensively informed president Trump.
"Drain the swamp" is en-route carried out partially by our military and Flynn's former
DIA.
The stage was set and president Trump kept the left distracted via twitter while the
operation is underway between our military, white hats and their allies abroad.
Mifsud was arrested by the Italian intelligence agents 3 days ago and brought back to
Rome.
Trump is a long way from stupid - he has so far managed via twitter and his orthodox ways
for the deep state to unmask themselves. Hiring enemies at times is a way to confuse those
that try to destroy you.
Mifsud's arrest could be key to unraveling or should I say, the Unmasking of. Rather large
amounts of fraudulent intelligence that was laundered through the FISA Warrant Application
process.
The AG reportedly now has Mifsud's Cellphones (2), which coupled with Mifsud's interview
statements, if not his direct cooperation. Should reveal the CIA and/or SA Strozk, were
responsible for providing Mifsud with the false Intelligence. Which he then fed into their
Warrant Apps, through the person of George Papadopoulos.
Which in turn, could establish that Mifsud was never the alleged Russian Agent linked to
Putin. But rather a western intelligence asset, linked to Brennan. Thus destroying the
obvious Defensive strategy of Brennan, Comey and McCabe. Specifically the vaunted, "Hey who
knew the intelligence was bad? I was just doing my JOB!
I believe it was because the FBI was intentionally lying about their authority to monitor the
Flynn-Kysliak conversation. Claiming they were not monitoring the WH, rather they were
monitoring the Russian Ambassador and LTG Flynn was merely, Caught-up in that conversation.
Which at the time, was a good-enough-story. But recent disclosures seem to prove the 2 Agents
along with Comey, McCabe as well as AAG Sally Yates. All knew at the time of their "Pretext"
was establishing a Perjury Trap for the new NSA.
What set Brennan's hair on fire that instigated Brennan's secret memo to Obama who in turn
created and authorized this multi-nation, IC secret surveillance and entrapment operation?
When will we learn why Samantha Powers demanded hundreds of FISA unmasking requests during
the final hours of the Obama administration, after the election but before before the
inauguration of Donald J Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America.
Why have Joseph Mifsud and Crowdstrike, yet again, disappeared from media interest.
Why oh why, certain persons disappear from media interest? Why for example, did Ghislaine
Maxwell disappear from media? Is she not involved in lawsuits? Do courts not know where she
is now? The all-knowing Wikipedia English - does not know (as of today, I checked). The
answer to all these troubling questions is in the comments to the Colonels piece on John
Hannah. Am I becoming paranoid perhaps.?
If the media continues endlessly about the Ukraine phone call, the quid pro quo yet fails to
mention Crowdstrike "favor" in the same article, something is fishy. The phone call story did
not drop out of sight; just a very salient detail. In fact the substance of the phone call is
the story- and what Democrats are calling grounds for impeachment. Yet NO mention of the
Crowdstrike favor. I find this odd. Don't you?
Under the caption, "Nobody does it better" this explanation from Defense Counsel Powell's
04NOV19 Filing, pg 3 para 2
"The government has known since prior to January 24, 2017, that it intended to target Mr.
Flynn for federal prosecution. That is why the entire investigation" of him was created at
least as early as summer 2016 and pursued despite the absence of a legitimate basis. That is
why Peter Strzok texted Lisa Page on January 10, 2017: "Sitting with Bill watching CNN. A TON
more out. .
We're discussing whether, now that this is out, we can use it as a pretext to go interview
some people." 3 The word "pretext" is key. Thinking he was communicating secretly only with
his paramour before their illicit relationship and extreme bias were revealed to the world,
Strzok let the cat out of the bag as to what the FBI was up to. Try as he might, Mr. Van Grack cannot stuff that cat back into that bag.4
Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as much as admitted the FBI's intent to set up Mr.
Flynn on a criminal false statement charge from the get-go. On Dec. 19, 2017, McCabe told the
House Intelligence Committee in sworn testimony: "[T]he conundrum that we faced on their
return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn't detect deception in the
statements that he made in the interview . . . the statements were inconsistent with our
understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador."
McCabe proceeded to admit to the Committee that "the two people who interviewed [Flynn]
didn't think he was lying, [which] was not [a] great beginning of a false statement case."
Ex. 1.
_____________
What's the saying? "Not much ambiguity there?"
Finally, on Nov 9, 2029 American Thinker in an article about Nancy Pelosi attempts at damage
control, someone in the media actually mentions Crowdstrike and the alleged " DNChacking"
........ "CrowdStrike, the cyber-security company that is involved in all this over and
over again, is a an American company founded by a Ukrainian, Dmitri Alperovitch, who is
extremely anti-Russia and who delights in implicating Russia in the DNC hacking event that
probably did not happen......"
We Americans are less obvious, if also less subtle: we quickly transform our common story
into uncommon glory -- of a Continental Army standing unbowed before well-drilled Redcoats, of
a war against slavery that, within a generation, became a War for Southern Independence, or in
extolling the sacrifice of 58,000 Americans in a divisive intervention that became, less than a
half a decade later, a "noble cause." Not surprisingly, the truth is far more interesting than
any myth. The Continental Army at Valley Forge was not only ill-clothed, underpaid, and
desertion-riddled, its finest day had come not against British regulars but mercenary Hessians;
the War for Southern Independence was waged to eliminate a racial blight that, when the war
began, had already seen its best (or, rather, worst), days, while the "noble cause" of Vietnam
featured a
military that , by 1971, was "in a state approaching collapse, with individual units
avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where
not near-mutinous."
The substitution of myth for fact, however, has its uses -- as one of our greatest soldiers,
General George Patton, certainly knew. While Patton was an indifferent student (he flunked
mathematics at West Point), he was an avid reader with a prodigious memory and a finely tuned
sense of history. Which makes his speech to the Third Army on June 5 of 1944 (as celebrated in
Hollywood's epic 1970 paean), all the more remarkable, as it extols a history we wish we had --
but don't: "Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this
war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit," Patton announced. "Americans love to fight,
traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."
But Patton was just getting started. "Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a
loser," he went on to say. "Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all the time. I
wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never
lost nor will ever lose a war; for the idea of losing is hateful to America."
Of course, very little of this was actually true -- even in 1944, two decades before
Vietnam. All Americans love the sting and clash of battle? Not really. In January of 1781, in
the midst of the American Revolution, 1500 soldiers of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey lines of
the Continental Army mutinied, murdered their officers, and threatened to march on
Philadelphia.
When the mutiny spread, Washington had the mutineers rounded up, arrested, and their
ringleaders shot by a firing squad made up of their
fellow soldiers . On July 10 of 1863, one week after the Battle of Gettysburg, the New York
draft riots protesting conscription set fire to 50 buildings, lynched 11 black bystanders, and
left 120 civilians dead. The insurrection (as it was called by city officials), was finally
quelled by the New York State Militia. And in late 1944, while commanding in Europe, Dwight
Eisenhower was so angered by the reports of teeming throngs of American deserters raping and
looting their way through France that he considered "lining them up and mowing them down."
Americans have never lost a war? It doesn't take a trained historian to point out that the
American military botched the War of 1812 (the White House was burned and Washington occupied),
performed poorly (and genocidally) in the Indian Wars of the late 19th century (in which one of
its most famous units, the 7th Cavalry, was erased from existence), and mishandled the brutal
1899 Philippine Insurrection -- during which Mark Twain described American soldiers as
"uniformed assassins." Patton was no dummy and might have recited all of this himself. But his
speech made for good copy (and, as it turned out, great cinema) and undoubtedly boosted morale,
particularly for those who, within a short time, would be facing off against the best light
infantry in the history of the world.
But while historical myths have their place in creating a national story, France, China, and
Russia have, in turn (and over time), chosen truth over triumph -- exhuming the greatness of
Napoleon, Mao, and Lenin,
while burying forever the policies they followed . This is true also for the United States.
For while we Americans readily adopt the regalia of our past, we expect that our institutions
will not follow suit; that in the midst of failure, our policymakers will discard myths and
choose reality.
This is what happened, famously, on March 25, 1968 when President Lyndon
Johnson met with a group he called "the wise men" -- a wizened crew of 14 Washington
policymakers to help him decide what to do about the worsening situation in Vietnam. Included
in the group was former secretary of state Dean Acheson, former White House counsel Clark
Clifford, former ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., and former JCS chairman
General Omar Bradley.
These officials had traditionally supported Johnson's Vietnam policies but now, in the wake
of the disastrous Tet Offensive, they had second thoughts. Stunned by the ferocity of the
Vietnamese attack, only two of the 14 (Maxwell Taylor and Abe Fortas) recommended that Johnson
"stay the course." The shift was symbolized by Omar Bradley, a military icon. Victory? "Maybe
we ought to lower our sights," he told Johnson.
Of course, while the March 1968 meeting of the wise men was crucial to America's adventure
in Vietnam (and Lyndon Johnson's political future), it did little to dampen the controversy
surrounding the war -- which has been refought, since, in the pages of the war's histories.
Indeed, it seems axiomatic that what cannot be won on a battlefield is often alchemized in
later accounts.
These bloodless campaigns, fought with pen rather than sword, turn defeats into victories,
burnish reputations, assess blame, but also blight understanding and blemish history. This is
particularly true when it comes to America's most controversial conflicts. In 1869, Confederate
Major General Dabney Herndon Maury founded the Southern Historical Society. Its papers, later
collected in 52 volumes, rewrote much of Civil War history, a tendentious rendering whose goal
was to argue the justness of the Lost Cause. Many of the society's papers remain troubling,
rehabilitating the image of the most famous and otherwise failed rebel leaders, while laying
the blame for the Confederate loss at the feet of southerners who, in later years, conceded the
Union victory. The papers also remain controversial because their most important claims (that Lee lost at
Gettysburg because his orders were disobeyed, that soldier-for-soldier, the southern armies
were simply better fighters than their northern counterparts) resulted from barely veiled
pro-southern and racially tinged political agendas. You'd have thought the South had won the
war.
The same holds true for Vietnam. In that war's aftermath, while much of America was trying
to forget the conflict, a small group of respected historians continued to pick at its scab,
leaving a blood trail of if-onlys in their wake. The most prominent of these historians was
Lewis "Bob" Sorley, a respected former officer and celebrated biographer (of Creighton Abrams
and William Westmoreland, among others), whose book on Vietnam, A Better War , has been
the subject of controversy since its publication in 1999.
In A Better War , Sorley argued that the U.S. might have won in Vietnam, if only that
nation's top commander in the conflict had discarded his costly and morale-sapping
search-and-destroy strategy in favor of maintaining the security of South Vietnam's population,
substituted clear-and-hold tactics for massive sweep operations, improved the training and
equipping of South Vietnam's military, decreased the destruction of U.S. firepower -- and
supported the South Vietnamese, instead of abandoning them.
The conclusions ignited a bonfire of criticism, particularly from some of the Army's more
respected thinkers. Writing in the pages of The National Interest in 2012, retired
Colonel Gian Gentile took on Sorley in a pointed critique that proposed that America should
have never been in Vietnam in the first place.
"In war, political and societal will are calculations of strategy, and strategists in
Vietnam should have discerned early on that the war was simply unwinnable based on what the
American people were willing to pay," Gentile wrote .
"Once the war started and it became clear that to prevail meant staying for an unacceptable
amount of time, American strategy should have moved to withdraw much earlier than it did.
Ending wars fought under botched strategy and policy can be every bit as damaging as the wars
themselves."
Put simply, Sorley argues that the Vietnam War could have been won, if only the U.S. had the
will to prevail, while Gentile responds that because the American people did not have the will
to prevail, the war should have never been fought.
The spat over the Civil War and Vietnam doesn't necessarily mean that history repeats
itself, but it does get rewritten -- and rethought. The same is now true for the war in Iraq.
The Army War College's weighty two-volume study of the 2003 Iraq conflict ( The U.S. Army in
the Iraq War ), has sparked a divisive mini-controversy among the uniformed services, whose
senior officers regularly debate its major conclusions (as I noted in The American
Conservative , online,
back in February ): that U.S. commanders didn't understand the country they invaded, made
assumptions about an enemy that proved to be wrong, didn't have enough soldiers to win the
fight, who bungled the military's detention policies, and who failed in their mission to train
and equip the Iraqi armed forces.
But any praise for these conclusions has been muted by the study's other (Sorley-like)
judgment: that, as in Vietnam -- where the villains were the antiwar movement and the Congress,
the villains in Iraq are George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the former blamed for too quickly
getting us in, the latter for too quickly getting us out.
Into this affray has now jumped a much shorter (at 292 pages), offering, written by a team
of nine experts and researchers at the Rand Corporation. The U.S. Army and the Battle for Baghdad , gives us what
the Army War College didn't -- an unvarnished and precise accounting of what went wrong and
why, and without the tendentious political overtones of the tome-like AWC study. This shouldn't
come as a surprise. Among the study's authors are two of the Army's leading thinkers: retired
Colonels David E. Johnson and Gian Gentile, the latter the outspoken Sorley critic known in the
military for his often-scathing ability to say what he means.
Johnson, on the other hand, is known for his counter-intuitive and often uncomfortable
question of given premises, which has made him a valued interlocutor in the upper echelons of
the Army. The likely result of the study (much talked about in the military prior to its
release earlier this year), is that it has had a far greater impact than its 1200-plus page
predecessor. The U.S. Army and the Battle for Baghdad is not a page-turner, unless of course
you're an Army officer, but it lays out in precise detail the eight lessons the military can,
and should learn, from Operation Iraqi Freedom. But most readers will find the study's
understated third chapter, on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, among the most compelling written on
the war.
At the center of this presentation is the unshifting, unalterable truth of the war -- -that
the dysfunction obvious at the upper levels of the U.S. military following the fall of Baghdad
mirrored a deeper civilian-military chasm in Washington. The result of the dysfunction was that
the initial Battle for Baghdad was simply a prelude to a continuing battle for Baghdad, that
the war, once ended, simply continued.
The study's authors issue this crisp judgment, which is starkly at odds with the AWC
study:
"While much of the blame for the shortcomings of postwar planning rightly falls on senior
rungs of the Bush administration, the truth of the matter is that there is more than enough
blame to go around, up and down the chains of command in military and civilian planning."
Military officers speak candidly of the problem: "I don't think that any of us either could
have or did anticipate the total collapse of this regime," Lt. General William Wallace told the
authors, "and the psychological impact it had on the entire nation."
In military history, this is "the Henry Wentz problem." Henry Wentz was born in York County
in Pennsylvania in 1827, but moved with his family to nearby Gettysburg when he was nine. He
spent his most formative years on his family farm, which was just south of the town and off the
Emmitsburg Road.
As a young adult Henry went to Martinsburg (then in Virginia), married a local girl and
became a carriage maker. When the Civil War came he joined the Confederate Army, serving as an
ordnance sergeant in Taylor's Virginia Battery. On July 2, 1863, Wentz found himself manning
his rebel guns in his family's front yard, at Gettysburg, as a part of Longstreet's bloody
assault on the Union Army's III Corps. Lee had attacked with Longstreet that day to unhinge the
Union line, planning to take the high ground around the Wentz farm at a peach orchard, which
Lee thought was a dominating position.The orchard, owned by the Sherfy family (and hence
referred to as the Sherfy Peach Orchard in battle histories) seemed to rise out of the ground
and command the fields beyond. The problem was that Sherfy's orchard didn't dominate anything.
It was not on a rise, it did not control the land beyond. The orchard's height, if you stand on
it, is an optical illusion. A short discussion with Henry Wentz might have shown this, if only
Lee had known that Wentz was there.
He didn't.
For military officers commanding thousands or hundreds of thousands of young men and women,
for military experts whose job it is to study these operations -- -and not just for hobbyists
or aficionados -- the Henry Wentz problem is a tolling bell, a heart stopping
wake-you-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night realization that not knowing , particularly when
lives are at stake, is an unforgivable blunder. Reading about Gettysburg many years later,
generations of Civil War historians, reclining by their firesides, want to scream at Lee: "What
do you mean you didn't know ?" And that is the value of The U.S. Army and the Battle
of Baghdad -- -and the effect of William Wallace's seemingly mundane, if stunning,
observation. The U.S. military did not anticipate that the drive for Baghdad would be
difficult, did not anticipate that the Iraq Army would transform itself into an insurgency, did
not anticipate "the total collapse of the regime" -- and so did not anticipate the tragedy that
followed. To which we too want to scream: what do you mean you didn't anticipate? It was
your job to anticipate."
It is long past time that the senior military leadership with Iraq invasion (not to
ignore the Afghan debacle) and since be held accountable for multitude of blunders and poor
performance overall.
The fawning adulation from the press serves no good purpose and simply perpetuates the
waste and fraud that gives us more blunders and weapons systems and "strategies" that do
not and could not work to specs and plans.
But as the article states, there is plenty of blame to go around, I am referring to the
"political Leadership" of bush, obama, and now trump, and of course, congress. Leadership
may be too kind a term for what passes for leadership.
no issues holding the military mistakes to account. But these choices were politically
made and the political leadership should not be permitted to scapegoat the military for the
leaderships choices to engage in regime change which included purging military
dissenters.
Full agreement here. In fact, it's rather silly to strike at the military leaders, people
trained in war, for supporting war. It's like complaining about a scientist who decides to
solve every crisis with attaching it to the Internet.
The generals look at ways to fight a war. It's the political leaders that determine if
war is the right idea. That's why it's the elected leaders, not the military, that hold the
keys. All of the manipulations of the DoD end once we have a Congress and White House that
wants it to end.
Honestly I respect the idea of going after the past leaderships that sent us here, but
really I'd be content with just finding a leadership that stops the train now and leave the
old guard to their retirements. That's going to be difficult as it is without us turning on
a revenge campaign that might turn ugly.
It's a relatively minor point in the article, but I would agree with those who claim that
man-for-man the Confederates were better soldiers than the Yankees. They held out for 4
years against the US, whose forces were numerically superior and far better equipped and
supplied, while managing to inflict more military casualties on their foes than they
suffered. In the same way, I'd also agree with the many historians and WWII veterans who
claim that the Germans were man-for-man better soldiers than any of their enemies. Both the
American Civil War and WWII were essentially wars of attrition. Losing such a war is no
military disgrace but it also doesn't mean that the losing side had a noble cause. In most
wars, there are no good guys.
in what way were the confederate soldiers better "man for man"?
US soldiers got slaughtered wholesale throughout the war - yet they had the spirit to
keep coming. They got slaughtered wholesale because they used tactics developed for the
previous generation of small arms. The tactic of marching at the enemy packed together.
As James McPherson describes in "Battle Cry of Freedom" they got slaughtered because
they 1) had to fight on offense and 2) they were using tactics designed for the previous
generation of small arms. They used tactics designed for weak-firing in accurate muskets
rather than the current generation of rifles - accurate and deadly from long ranges.
They used the tactic of massing men together and marching at the enemy. This worked for
muskets. For rifles loaded with minie balls, it made them sitting ducks when they marched
towards dug in Confederates.
This article's author, Mr. Perry, mentions the slaughter of the Confederate soldiers at
the peach orchard. A slaughter that resulted from the Confederates having to walk across a
long rise of land before they could engage with the enemy. The slaughter that was said to
have begun the defeat the Confederates. An awful slaughter.
The US soldiers didn't have just one peach orchard, they had many. They had "cold
harbor", they had "the bloody angle", they had "Marye's heights". Dug in confederates armed
with rifles mangled US soldiers horribly. Mangled them as they marched, out in the open,
well within rifle range, towards dug in and hidden Confederates.
Yet the Union soldiers had the spirit to keep on coming. It's like "Butch Cassidy and
The Sundance Kid". As Perry points out, post Civil War Southern supporting writers
romanticized the poor, starving, southern infantryman. He was handsome, stoic, and a
fighter. But it was the northern guys who kept on coming. Kept on coming despite seeing so
many of their friends torn to pieces.
Northern soldiers who had the stuff to get the job done.
So the more numerous side that has the spirit to keep coming despite enormous casualties
and because of bad tactics are by definition better soldiers than the less numerous side
which using good tactics has the spirit to keep fighting until they finally run out of
effective fighters? By this standard the more numerous are always better soldiers as long
as they win in the end, which they usually will in a war of attrition. By this standard,
the Russians were far better soldiers than the Germans in WWII. Hint - the term man-for-man
indicates I am measuring quality rather than just quantity and quality in soldiers includes
tactical proficiency, not just bravery.
War is an obsolete idea. 1000 years ago, the only way to increase your wealth was to take
over someone else's land and enthrall the local population to farm it for you. 200 years
ago it was necessary to capture a population in order to force them to only purchase your
manufactured goods, so your capitalists didn't have to compete with those of other
countries.
In a information/service economy, war and control over other populations serve no
purpose. The DOD, like all grand bureaucracies, survives only through the corruption of
Congress.
It is time to disband the military. Get rid of the Navy, but leave the Coast Guard. Then
turn the Coast Guard over to the States. Disband the Army and Marine Corps. Let the State's
maintain their National Guards if they want. Disband the Air Force. The federal government
should just maintain a nuclear deterrent force and set up a coastal missile defense that
can destroy any Navy attempting to sail to attack us.
Have the federal government manufacture everything it needs itself instead of handing
over tax payer dollars which are then used to corrupt Congress. It's time.
I look forward to further articles on the military's culture of not knowing. I've spent
my whole adult life around Army personnel. (mostly retired). Going off to do things
half-cocked is a point of pride with them. It's a macho trait that they love about
themselves. Being willing to take action even though they haven't spent much time assessing
the forces in their way.- being willing to wade into unknown danger.
Pondering things seriously is weakness - in their view.
further, at least one of these unlikely seeming new proponents of traditional
masculinity - Jordan Peters - celebrates this macho trait. The macho trait of taking action
without considering all knowable facts.
"the War for Southern Independence was waged to eliminate a racial blight that, when the
war began, had already seen its best (or, rather, worst)"
The comforting notion that slavery was destined to "fade away" was frequently indulged
in during the 250 plus years that it lasted in the U.S., but it never did. As for the Wentz
anecdote, if Lee had talked with Wentz, the outcome of the war would not have changed.
There is an interesting "sabermetric" study of generals you can find online that gives a
particularly interesting picture of Lee. He was one of the most aggressive generals in
history, fighting more battles than anyone except Napoleon. But he was also--wait for
it--BELOW AVERAGE. (Please don't spill your mint julip.) Grant, on the other hand, was one
of the 10 best ever.
Slavery was on the way out and in another generation was gone throughout the western world,
including the African colonies, and surviving only in Arabia. Only in the US and Haiti was
slavery ended by wars and horrific bloodshed. In all other countries, including the vast
slave empire of Brazil, slavery was abolished with minimal to no casualties. A bit of
patience on the part of the abolitionists and unionists would have led to a somewhat later
but peaceful end of slavery in the southern US. The union of all the states may not have
been preserved, but in my estimation that would have been a good thing, if achieved
peacefully.
The military planners knew what was needed to pacify Iraq in the invasion and occupation.
750,000 troops and 25B+ dollars. Darth Cheney knew the US public wouldn't accept that, so
they went in on the cheap, ignored the vast stores of conventional weapons, and Viceroy
Bremmer back-stabbed the Iraqi army, thus creating the insurgency. Why? Because Planned
Chaos is the most profitable, and taking Iraq oil off the market greatly enriched our
"Saudi friends" and lots of other producers in the region. Inflation-adjusted oil prices
more than doubled from 2003 to 2007.
As of early 2009, the surge had worked, were holding territory on turf Islamic savages
considered their own and were killing hoards of jihadi scum who were flocking there, pretty
much at will, who were being induced to do so at the behest of Bin Laden. Iraq was part of
a long term strategic regional strategy (kill them on their own turf) which was working
quite well as far as it got. 4000 dead US soldiers is a travesty under any circumstances,
but considering what we had accomplished it pales in comparison with Vietnam. Keep in mind
we stayed in Germany and Japan for decades after WWII to ensure our efforts were not
wasted.
Iraq was not a debacle until 0bama refused to negotiate an updated SOFA, effectively
surrendered (against military and other expert advice) and rendered every single US
military death to have been in vain.
"... this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods. ..."
"... Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth. ..."
"... To me Trump is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split when it comes to impeachment. ..."
"... Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist Web Site: The CIA Democrats . ..."
"... "The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth." ..."
"... Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all boats! ..."
"... Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a "war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all. ..."
"... To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero. ..."
"... The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee. ..."
I am amazed how the Impeachment Circus and the mainstream media continue to
ignore the facts of this story:
Joe Biden has been a favorite target for Trump-allied lawmakers. Many have adopted Trump's unsubstantiated assertion that Biden
pushed for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was investigating Burisma.
The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party.
...
Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. "The CIA is not involved in domestic politics," he said. "Period. That's on the
record."
This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence campaigns on swing voters and implied
that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it
seems, have their blind spots.
What shifted [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] now? I'd say the answer is: this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's
about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party
agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and
equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods.
I agree with Mr. Salutin, the impeachment is not about impeachment, although if impeachment results, I'm sure they will take
it. And I agree it's about protecting the current Democratic Part "elites", both from scandal (Joe Biden, Clinton) and from the
challenge on the left. A risky and desperate move .
I tend to think it was Trump going after the Ukraine cesspit that precipitated the impeachment, but other motives seem relevant.
I have thought since Obama went all in with Russiagate that the current Dem leadership does not feel it can afford to relinquish
control.
Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And
they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth.
To me Trump
is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to
start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split
when it comes to impeachment.
Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)
Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist
Web Site: The CIA Democrats .
Craig Murray has an exclusive interview with
Randy Credico he prefaces with these remarks:
"The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself
was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone
trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about
Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving
to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact
it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on
a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth."
That would include MoA barflies since we crave Truth. Murray has a bit more to say prior to the excerpt I provide, which I
suggest be read, too.
What a feast of links! I've only just started, with b's Daniel Lazare piece at Stretegic Culture.org - well done!
" ...This is what impeachment is about, not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine – plus Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and other countries that the Obama administration succeeded in destroying – and why Trump should pay the supreme penalty
for suggesting that Democrats are in any way to blame..."
Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all
boats!
Impeachment is about controlling where the attention is focused. When things get to close to home Pelosi says look over here at
the orange head, look over there at the border but whatever you do, do not look over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE ">here.
"Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)"
Andrew J. Bacevich weighs in on US foreign policy:
Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of
World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian
Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly
in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a
"war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all.
To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the
ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that
failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero.
There is no going back to an imagined Golden Age of American statecraft in the Middle East. The imperative is to go forward,
which requires acknowledging how wrongheaded U.S. policy in region has been ever since FDR had his famous tete-a-tete with
King Ibn Saud and Harry Truman rushed to recognize the newborn State of Israel.t
The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement
on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with
the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee.
@Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 11 2019 21:30 utc | 152
But, with that explanation, it is like you are whithewashing fascism as a merely opposing political view, which is precisley
the position and pretension of the Trumpers, when it is not. Fascism is incompatible with democracy and human rights...as the
recent ( just overnight the coup...) declarations by The Donald on the events in Bolivia come to confirm...
You forget a main characteristic of fascists, that is that they aspire ( and when the circumstances allow it, always try...)
to wipe out their political adversaries from the face of Earth, as the case in Bolivia is so flagrantry illustrating. Along with
their political adversaries, who are always those who position themselves in the side or as representives of the people, they
always try to wipe out also all those subgroups of human beings they consider utermenschen ...In this cathegory they will
include many, slavs, latinos, jews, gypsies, black people...
Then, once in power, they will use terror to keep the citizenry ( who otherwise will rebel once the real "program" of the nazis
unveiled ) in control...
That the US system is as a whole fascist falls plainly in the faces of all its deluded and anestesized citizens when you see today
that neither Pelosi, nor Schumaker, nor Clinton, nor Biden have said a word agsint what happened yesterday in Bolivia or against
the words of the POTUS who "allegedly" they try to overthrow...a representation described by Trump himself, in the heights of
stone face, as coup d´etat...
I stated that fascism has no ideology. It cannot be a "political view" .
The fascists in Rwanda are Black. The fascists in Israel are Jewish. The fascists in Ukraine are Slavs. The fascists in Colombia
are Latinos.
Fascism isn't about one ethnicity or another. Ethnic prejudice is just one (of many) handle that the capitalists elites use
to get some parts of society to attack other parts. The people who fall under that control by the capitalist elites are fascists.
Understanding What Sidney Powell is Doing to Kill the Case Against Michael Flynn by Larry
C Johnson
Sidney Powell, General Michael Flynn's magnificent lawyer, is in the process of destroying
the bogus case that Robert Mueller and his gang of legal thugs tried to sneak past appropriate
judicial review. To help you understand what she is doing we must first go back and review the
indictment of Flynn and then look at what Ms. Powell, aka Honey Badger, has forced the
prosecutors to admit.
Here are the nuts and bolts of the indictment
On or about January 24, 2017, defendant MICHAEL T. FLYNN did willfully and knowingly make
materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations . . . to agents of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation that:
(i) On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Government of Russia's Ambassador
to the United States ("Russian Ambassador") to refrain from escalating the situation in
response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day; and
FLYNN did not recall the Russian Ambassador subsequently telling him that Russia had chosen to
moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of his request.
(ii) On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN did not ask the Russian Ambassador to delay the
vote on or defeat a pending United Nations Security Council resolution; and that the Russian
Ambassador subsequently never described_to FLYNN Russia's response to his request.
Let me make a couple of observations before we dig into the notes and the 302 that FBI
Agents Strzok and Pientka wrote up during and following their interview of Michael Flynn on
January 24, 2017. First, Michael Flynn did nothing wrong or inappropriate in speaking to
Russia's Ambassador Kislyak. He was doing his job as an incoming National Security Advisor to
President Trump. Second, not "recalling" what Ambassador Kislyak said (or did not say) on 22
December is not lying. Third, even if Flynn did ask the Russian Ambassador on the 29th of
December to "refrain from escalating the situation" in response to the U.S. sanctions imposed
by Barack Hussein Obama, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is wise counsel
intended to defuse a situation.
Now, here is where the FBI, especially Agents Strzok and Pientka, are in so much trouble.
The day prior to the "interview" of General Flynn the FBI plotters met to discuss strategy.
According to Sidney Powell:
January 23, the day before the interview, the upper echelon of the FBI met to orchestrate it
all. Deputy Director McCabe, General Counsel James Baker, , Lisa Page, Strzok, David Bowdich,
Trish Anderson, and Jen Boone strategized to talk with Mr. Flynn in such a way as to keep from
alerting him from understanding that he was being interviewed in a criminal investigation of
which he was the target. (Ex.12). Knowing they had no basis for an investigation,6 they
deliberately decided not to notify DOJ for fear DOJ officials would follow protocol and notify
White House Counsel.
Peter Strzok was interviewed on 19 July 2017 by the FBI and, according to his affidavit,
pretended that he was asked on the 24th of January 2017 to interview General Flynn. He implied
this was a last minute request. But as noted in the preceding paragraph, which is based on an
interview of Strzok's mistress, Lisa Page, a meeting took place the day before to orchestrate
the ambush of General Flynn.
What is truly remarkable is that Peter Strzok stated the following, which exonerates Flynn
of the charges in the indictment cited above:
Strzok and Pientka both had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not
think he was lying. Flynn struck Strzok as "bright, but not profoundly sophisticated."
The fact that the FBI Agents Strzok and Pientka did not to show General Flynn the transcript
of his calls to refresh his recollection, nor did they confront him directly if he did not
remember, exposes this plot as a contrived scenario to entrap Michael Flynn rather than a
legitimate, legally founded investigation.
In fact, as noted by Sidney Powell, "the FBI and DOJ wrote an internal memo dated January
30, 2017, exonerating Mr. Flynn of acting as an "agent of Russia;" and, they all knew there was
no Logan Act violation."
The notes taken by Agents Strzok and Pientka during their interview of Michael Flynn are
damning for the FBI. These notes are Exhibits 9 and 10 in the sur sureply filed by Sidney
Powell on 1 November 2019. (I wrote recently on the fact that the FBI/DOJ mislabeled the notes
from this interview--see here). Neither Strzok nor Pientka recorded any observation that Flynn
lied about his contacts with Kislyak. Neither wrote down anything supporting the indictment by
the Mueller crowd that "Flynn lied." To the contrary, Strzok swore under oath that he did not
believe Flynn was lying.
The real problem for the Government's fraudulent case against Flynn are the 302s. There
should only be one 302. Not at least four versions. The FBI protocol is to enter the 302 into
the FBI Sentinel system within five days of the interview. In other words, the original 302
should have been put on the record on the 29th of January. But that original 302 is MISSING.
The prosecutors claim they cannot find it.
But the prosecutors finally did provide the defense, after repeated requests, multiple
copies of 302s. They dated as follows--10 February 2017, 11 February 2017. 14 February 2017 and
15 February 2017. WTF??? This alone is prima facie evidence that something crooked was
afoot.
The final 302--dated 15 February 2017--painted General Flynn in the worst possible light.
The "facts" of this 302 are not supported by the notes taken by Agents Strzok and Pientka. The
conclusion is simple--the FBI fabricated a case against General Flynn. We now wait to see if
Judge Sullivan will acknowledge this crooked conduct and exonerate the good General. Justice
demands it.
These are not my facts. They are the facts based on documents submitted on the record to
Judge Sullivan. I find it shocking that no journalist has had the energy or interest to cover
this. Just one more reminder of the putrid state of journalism and investigative reporting. The
charges levied against General Flynn by the Mueller prosecutors are without foundation. That is
the stark conclusion facing any honest reader of the documents/exhibits uncovered by the Honey
Badger. This kind of conduct by the FBI is just one more proof to support Colonel Lang's wise
observation that this institution, along with the CIA, should be burned to the ground and new
institutions erected in their stead that are committed to upholding the Constitution and
preserving the rights of the individual.
General Flynn was the National Security Advisor to the President. Among his duties he would
be expected to talk with foreign officials, including Russians, perhaps especially Russians.
My question is what was the predicating evidence that gave rise to opening a criminal case
with Flynn as the subject at all. What was the substantive violation; and why was there a
need to convene a meeting of high level Bureau official to discuss an ambush interview. What
was there to talk about in this meeting? My suspicion is that they expected, or hoped, at the
outset to leverage Flynn against Trump which makes the scheme worse, much worse
Re: predicate - IIRC, this is where the work of the FBI/CIA "ratfucker" Stefan Halper was
instrumental, having propagated the bogus claim that scholar Svetlana Lokhova was a Russian
agent with whom Gen. Flynn was having a sexual relationship.
There was a simpler time when even the least accomplished FBI Agent would have known enough
to ask Mr Halper for the circumstantial details as to how he acquired the news that Flynn had
any relationship at all with Lokhova, let alone a sexual relationship, who told him, how did
he know, why was he telling him, when, etc. The same questions should have been resolved with
respect to Lokhova before entertaining a conclusion that she was a Russian Agent of some
sort. Finally, even if the allegation against Flynn had been true, which had not been
established, and the allegation against Lokhova had been true, which as far as I know had not
been established, the Agents should have laid those cards before Flynn from the outset as the
reason he was being interviewed. If during the course of the interview he became suspect of
having done something illegal, he should have been told what it was and given all his rights,
including the right to an attorney. If the Agents suspected he was lying in matters of such
significant import that he would be charged for lying, they should have been given a specific
warning that lying was a prosecutable offense. That would have been playing it down the
middle. Since none of this appears to have been done, the question is why not. The leading
suspicion is that the carefully considered intent was to take down Flynn by any means
necessary to advance another purpose.
There are two separate issues: The Russian-Flynn Spying connection was established in London
back in 2015. IMO using Halper as an echo-chamber for Brennan's collusion fabrications. LTG
Flynn at that time was being set-up, for a retaliatory career strike(TS Clearance issues, I
submit).
The Flynn Perjury case was made in Jan 17 in DC, by the Secret Society, Comey, McCabe,
Yates, Strozk and the unwitting, SA Joe Pientka (hopefully). This trap was drafted by Comey,
specifically to take advantage of the newly elected President's inexperienced Cabinet, the WH
in-chaos. Chaos reportedly generated by a well timed Leak to the media. Which suggested that
LTG Flynn had Lied to VP Pence.
This FBI leak, now had the WH in a tail spin. Given the collusion beliefs at that time, had
VP Pence admitted that acting NSA Flynn, did in fact speak with the Russian Kislyak re:
Sanctions. The media would've screamed, the call demonstrated Russian Collusion.
Since VP Pence stated, he did not know that NSA Flynn had discussed the Sanctions with
Kislyak. The media created the image that Flynn had lied to the VP...
This was the "Pretext" which Defense Council Powell referred to. This is the opportune
moment, at which Comey sprang and later bragged about. Stating publicly that he took
advantage of a inexperienced Trump oval office in turmoil. Claiming he decided "Screw IT"
I'll send two agents in to question Flynn.
Without going through FBI-WH protocols. Because Comey knew that protocols would alert the
entire WH Staff. Making the FBI's hopes for a Perjury Trap against NSA Flynn, impossible.
Accordingly, AAG Yates and McCabe then both set the stage, with calls to WH Counsel
McGahn. Where they threatened charges against Flynn under the nonexistent "1799" Logan Act.
As well as suggesting that Flynn was now vulnerable to Extortion by Russian agents. Since the
Russians knew he had lied to the VP.
As Powell points out, by 24JAN17, the date of the Flynn interview. The entire world, knew
Flynn had Lied. Making the extortion threat rather bogus. In fact reports stated, at that
time even WHC McGahn had asked either Yates or McCabe (don't recall which). Why would the FBI
give a damn, what the NSA had told the VP? However the Bureau persisted and they won out.
McGahn is reported to have told Flynn, that he should sit down with these two FBI
agents...
Once Flynn sat down and gave a statement. FWIW, I think Andy McCabe was going to find a
Flynn misstatement or create one. Sufficient to justify the 1001 charge. It appears as though
McCabe took the later option and simply Created one.
Excellent summation.
My question is does some combination of incompetence and bubblethink naivete explain how at
the outset they could have gone all in on the Brennan/Halper information or did they just
cynically exploit the opportunity that had been manufactured in order to take it to the next
level -Trump. Taking it to the next level appears to be what drove the Papadopolis case where
similar procedural abuses occurred.
Poor George Popadopoulos, also "bright, but not profoundly sophisticated.", also had lawyers
who rolled over to the FBI.
If you read George's book, "Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the
Plot to Bring Down President Trump", the methods used on Flynn sound familiar.
Since George only served two weeks, I wonder if it would be worth while for him to tackle
the FBI again?
PS When the FBI says you are not "sophisticated", does that mean that they view you as
easy to trick?
Papadopolis signed "confession" equally odd: string of disconnected facts topped off with
what appears almost to be an added "conclusion" allegedly based on these irrelevant string of
factual statements that damn him into eternity as well.
Was the conclusionary" confession" added later, or was it shoved in front of him to sign
as a unwitting last minute alteration to a previously agreed set of facts is pror statements
he had already agreed were true? Just me, but when I read this "confession some time ago, it
simply did not pass the smell test.
The signed "confession: basically appeared to be accusing Papadopolus and by extension the
Trump campaign of violating the Logan Act - violating Obama's exclusive right to conduct
foreign policy.
(A SCHIFF PARAPHRAse)
Yes I was in Russia
Yes, I ate pork chops for dinner
Yes. I endeavored to meet with Russian individuals
Etc - benign
Etc - benign
Confession - al of the above are true
Kicker: Final Statement I INTENTIONALLY MET WITH TOP LEVEL RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AGENTS TO
DISCUSS US FOREIGN POLICY
Papadopoulos' "lies" rest on subjective interpretation. For instance, one of the "lies"
consist of a referral to Mifsud as "a nobody". A second "lie" is based on when he officially
joined the Trump campaign: George P says it was when he first went to Washington and attended
a campaign meeting, while the indictment says no it was when he participated in the phone
call which invited him on board (a difference of a couple of weeks). It is very very thin
gruel.
If the evidence provided by the defence in the Flynn case is even only a partial example
of the capabilities and proclivities of the FBI, then how many other poor schmucks have been
convicted and jailed unjustly at the hands of this organisation?
The answer, given the size of the organisation must be : "thousands". The remedy is
obvious and compelling if you want to remain something like a first world democracy.
How many others have there been? The genesis of the USA v Flynn, was a CIA-FBI hybrid. An
international Co-Intel operation, aimed at targeting Donald Trump. As such "the Case" was
initiated from the top down, under the secrecy of a T/S Counter-Intelligence operation.
These are not the normal beginnings of a Criminal matter. Which originates with a filed
criminal Complaint, from the ground-up.
In short all of the checks and balances our federal statutes mandate. Steps where AUSA's,
Bureau ASAC's and District Judges must review and approve. Even before convening a GJ. Were
intentionally overridden or perjured by a select society of the highest officials inside DoJ.
As such there were no higher authorities nor any of the Higher Loyalty for Jim Comey to seek
his resolution from.
That is not the normal investigative process. This was a deliberate criminal act to target
an innocent man (actually several innocent men). As such IMO, the associated political
pressure, all of which was self-inflicted. Was the force which brought about the criminality
on the part of Comey, McCabe, et al.
So, FWIW, you don't see those levels of personal involvement in criminal investigations.
The classic, where the murder victim's brother is the town Sheriff. Hence you don't see cases
of innocent people being dragged off to the Dungeons. Certainly not intentionally and not in
the thousands, anyway.
On another blog, a commenter claimed Flynn was going to program audit the entire IC - money
spent and results obtained.
So instead of Flynn burning the agency down, they did just the opposite and got to him
first. Just like Sen Schumer warned Trump: don't take on the IC, because they have six ways
against Sunday to take you down.
Maybe Flynn' s alleged post-inauguration audit plans is what triggered Brennan to get
Obama to secretly keep his eyes on Flynn - maybe that was the second tier secret access they
wanted, not necessarily Trump himself?
Survival in DC is existential - my own in-house observation during the Watergate
years.
The reports I've read tell of a long and sorted history between LTG Flynn, John Brennan, DNI
Clapper and Obama. Some of the stories did remind me of the SST suggestion to, "Burn it all
down". The General also supported this idea that DoD, should be the lead agency in the IC and
CA. Since must of their modern day activity, does tend to be kinetic...
So LTG Flynn has made enemies in the Obama administration, CIA and DNI.
However, IMO the far more telling issue of the depths of IC's Coup effort. Are the
exploits of Halper, Mifsud, MI6-CIA link. Which began back in 2015. This gives the
impression, Flynn was being targeted for career destruction. Solely as retaliation for his
departure from the Obama Administration, coupled with Flynn's open opposition to policies of
Obama-Brennan (Iran-Syria-Libya). This took place way before he agreed to the NSA post with
President Trump.
Then there's also LTG Flynn's direct rebuttal of DDFBI Andy McCabe. Seems McCabe was
involved in a Bureau OPR dust-up over sexual harassment allegations. The female SA worked CT
and was an acquaintance of Gen Flynn's. Flynn then made a public statement of support for the
Agent. Which was reported to have angered Andy. Sydney Powell, suggests that McCabe was
overhead to have said words to the effect or, First we F--- Flynn, then we F--- Trump. During
one of his 7th floor, Secret Society meetings.
Again all of this happened, before General Flynn was Candidate Trump's NSA Designee. So
the Six ways to Sunday, warning does resonate re: LTG Flynn as well.
In my experience in the US armed forces.... having a top secret crypto clearance...
And later.... as a federal investigator...
I distinctly remember that conversations between the White house, particularly the
president and his national security chief are "top secret -- eyes only for the president"
So.....
Why did FLynn not have the Secret Service Detail arrest Sztrok and company on the spot for
violating US security CFRs by knowing such conversations took place and knowing the contents
thereof with out appropriate security clearances??
"Why did FLynn not have the Secret Service Detail arrest Sztrok and company on the spot for
violating US security CFRs.."
Many things about Spygate have puzzled me. The response by Trump after becoming POTUS to
all the machinations by Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rosenstein, et al has been baffling. It is
like he does not understand the powers of his office. And after he learned about the covert
action action against his campaign and him, to then staff his administration with folks who
were in cahoots with the putschists is frankly bizarre.
Does anyone have any explanation for the actions or inactions of Trump & Flynn?
"Does anyone have any explanation for the actions or inactions of Trump & Flynn?"
I have no comment relative to Flynn, but, in regards to Trump, IMO, Trump is stupid.
First, a little background. I did vote for Trump. I did have an hatred for national
politics ever since the Cheney "presidency". In that period, I was a dissident with a very
minor voice. But, I did study, as best as I could, the Bush (Cheney) and the Obama
presidency. It was reasonably clear that president's. didn't count. IMO the real power lay
with: a handful of Senate leaders, the CIA, the bureaucracy, and the powerful families that
controlled the major multi-national corporations, such as, Exxon Mobile. The preceding
constituted a powerful oligarchy that controlled the U.S. A dictatorship of sorts.
Trump had two major objectives for his presidency: MAGA and "drain the swamp". I concurred
with both objectives. After six months of the Trump presidency, and after observing his
choice of appointments and his actions, I concluded that he was a high school baseball player
trying to compete with the major leagues. He didn't know what he was doing (and, still
doesn't).
At that time, I concluded that if Trump really wanted to install MAGA and "drain the
swamp" he should have concluded way before putting his hat in the ring, that the only way to
accomplish his objective was to foster a coup after becoming president. Prior to his
presidency, he would had to select a team which would be his appointees and develop a plan.
After becoming president, he would have to ignore Congress and put his people in place
including in the DOD. The team would stay in control regardless of Congress' views.
Of course, this is a dictatorship, but is this any less obnoxious to our current oligarchs
dictatorship.
You're not wrong in criticizing Trump's personnel choices and inaction. When he entered
office he was warned about the SES/SIS holdovers and the need to get his own people in place.
He ignored that advice and is suffering the consequences. Trump played a character on TV of
being a shrewd, tough judge of talent and ability. In reality, he is a bit of a goofball.
That said, his basic policy positions are solid with respect to putting America first,
enforcing immigration laws, and disengaging from the foreign adventurism that has defined US
foreign policy for the last 75 years.
My hope is that he now finally recognizes the threat.
I prefer thinking of Donald Trump as a World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Famer as it fits
the context of what we are seeing more precise. Staged drama, personality pitted against
personality, all a great spectacle.
If it makes the denizens of DC fall on their fainting couches with the image all the
better.
Isn't Donald Trump suffering the same problem Jimmy Carter had that as a DC outsider he
isn't able hire talent and the establishment has made it clear that a position in the Trump
administration is a career killer?
Democrat's politics of personal destruction made it virtually impossible for Trump to hire or
appoint the requisite people for the task you described. RINO's wouldn't touch him and
Democrats were hell bent for revenge at any costs.
Amazing he did as well as he has done so far - considering his election was so toxic to
any possible insiders who could have offered the necessary experience to warn him where the
third rails were located.
Give him another four years and full control of GOP House and Senate back - this country
needs his energy and resoluteness to finally get the real work done. Patriots at every level
need to apply for appointed positions.
BTW: I was a rabid no-Trumper up to election night. Then Trump became my President. I have
not looked back.
Draining the Swamp can't be accomplished by hiring within the beltway or hiring any long-term
Democrat or Republican operative including members of Congress.
Trump should have recognized when he learned that his transition team was being spied on
that he had to hire people who believed in his agenda and had no ties to the Swamp.
By hiring folks like Haley, Pompeo, Bolton, Coats, Rosenstein, Wray, etc and not cleaning
house by firing entire swathes of the bureaucracy and then not using the powers of his office
to declassify but instead passing the buck on to Rosenstein, Sessions and Barr and only
tweeting witch hunt he has enabled the Swamp to run circles around him.
IMO, he is where he is because of his inability to put together a coherent team that
believes in his agenda and is willing to fight the Swamp with everything thy've got.
@joekovalski98: Pres. Trump came into office being very familiar with the intelligence
operation against him.
Enter Admiral (ret) Mike Rogers who travelled secretly without approval by Clapper to brief
the president of the spy operation.
Trump immediately move his administration to NJ.
Rogers and Flynn go back many years as Rogers was a protégé of Flynn. They
both extensively informed president Trump.
"Drain the swamp" is en-route carried out partially by our military and Flynn's former
DIA.
The stage was set and president Trump kept the left distracted via twitter while the
operation is underway between our military, white hats and their allies abroad.
Mifsud was arrested by the Italian intelligence agents 3 days ago and brought back to
Rome.
Trump is a long way from stupid - he has so far managed via twitter and his orthodox ways
for the deep state to unmask themselves. Hiring enemies at times is a way to confuse those
that try to destroy you.
Mifsud's arrest could be key to unraveling or should I say, the Unmasking of. Rather large
amounts of fraudulent intelligence that was laundered through the FISA Warrant Application
process.
The AG reportedly now has Mifsud's Cellphones (2), which coupled with Mifsud's interview
statements, if not his direct cooperation. Should reveal the CIA and/or SA Strozk, were
responsible for providing Mifsud with the false Intelligence. Which he then fed into their
Warrant Apps, through the person of George Papadopoulos.
Which in turn, could establish that Mifsud was never the alleged Russian Agent linked to
Putin. But rather a western intelligence asset, linked to Brennan. Thus destroying the
obvious Defensive strategy of Brennan, Comey and McCabe. Specifically the vaunted, "Hey who
knew the intelligence was bad? I was just doing my JOB!
I believe it was because the FBI was intentionally lying about their authority to monitor the
Flynn-Kysliak conversation. Claiming they were not monitoring the WH, rather they were
monitoring the Russian Ambassador and LTG Flynn was merely, Caught-up in that conversation.
Which at the time, was a good-enough-story. But recent disclosures seem to prove the 2 Agents
along with Comey, McCabe as well as AAG Sally Yates. All knew at the time of their "Pretext"
was establishing a Perjury Trap for the new NSA.
What set Brennan's hair on fire that instigated Brennan's secret memo to Obama who in turn
created and authorized this multi-nation, IC secret surveillance and entrapment operation?
When will we learn why Samantha Powers demanded hundreds of FISA unmasking requests during
the final hours of the Obama administration, after the election but before before the
inauguration of Donald J Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America.
Why have Joseph Mifsud and Crowdstrike, yet again, disappeared from media interest.
Why oh why, certain persons disappear from media interest? Why for example, did Ghislaine
Maxwell disappear from media? Is she not involved in lawsuits? Do courts not know where she
is now? The all-knowing Wikipedia English - does not know (as of today, I checked). The
answer to all these troubling questions is in the comments to the Colonels piece on John
Hannah. Am I becoming paranoid perhaps.?
If the media continues endlessly about the Ukraine phone call, the quid pro quo yet fails to
mention Crowdstrike "favor" in the same article, something is fishy. The phone call story did
not drop out of sight; just a very salient detail. In fact the substance of the phone call is
the story- and what Democrats are calling grounds for impeachment. Yet NO mention of the
Crowdstrike favor. I find this odd. Don't you?
Under the caption, "Nobody does it better" this explanation from Defense Counsel Powell's
04NOV19 Filing, pg 3 para 2
"The government has known since prior to January 24, 2017, that it intended to target Mr.
Flynn for federal prosecution. That is why the entire investigation" of him was created at
least as early as summer 2016 and pursued despite the absence of a legitimate basis. That is
why Peter Strzok texted Lisa Page on January 10, 2017: "Sitting with Bill watching CNN. A TON
more out. .
. We're discussing whether, now that this is out, we can use it as a pretext to go interview
some people." 3 The word "pretext" is key. Thinking he was communicating secretly only with
his paramour before their illicit relationship and extreme bias were revealed to the world,
Strzok let the cat out of the bag as to what the FBI was up to. Try as he might, Mr. Van
Grack cannot stuff that cat back into that bag.4
Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as much as admitted the FBI's intent to set up Mr.
Flynn on a criminal false statement charge from the get-go. On Dec. 19, 2017, McCabe told the
House Intelligence Committee in sworn testimony: "[T]he conundrum that we faced on their
return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn't detect deception in the
statements that he made in the interview . . . the statements were inconsistent with our
understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador."
McCabe proceeded to admit to the Committee that "the two people who interviewed [Flynn]
didn't think he was lying, [which] was not [a] great beginning of a false statement case."
Ex. 1.
_____________
What's the saying? "Not much ambiguity there?"
Finally, on Nov 9, 2029 American Thinker in an article about Nancy Pelosi attempts at damage
control, someone in the media actually mentions Crowdstrike and the alleged " DNChacking"
........ "CrowdStrike, the cyber-security company that is involved in all this over and
over again, is a an American company founded by a Ukrainian, Dmitri Alperovitch, who is
extremely anti-Russia and who delights in implicating Russia in the DNC hacking event that
probably did not happen......"
"... The truth is that for the Clintonite-Bushite elite almost all Americans are 'deplorable'. What is fun for them is to play geopolitics – the elite version of corporate travel perks – just look at how shocked they are that Trump is not playing along. ..."
Recent class history of US is quite simple: the elite class first tried to shift the burden
of supporting the lower classes on the middle class with taxation. But as the lower class
became demographically distinct, partially via mass immigration, the elites decided to ally
with the ' underpriviledged ' via identity posturing and squeeze no longer needed
middle class out of existence.
What's left are government employees, a few corporate sinecures, NGO parasitic sector, and
old people. The rest will be melded into a few mutually antagonistic tribal groups providing
ever cheaper service labor. With an occasional lottery winner to showcase mobility. Actually
very similar to what happened in Latin America in the past few centuries.
The truth is that for the Clintonite-Bushite elite almost all Americans are
'deplorable'. What is fun for them is to play geopolitics – the elite version of
corporate travel perks – just look at how shocked they are that Trump is not playing
along.
Unlike the USA (under Neocon stewardship) China has not squandered twenty trillion dollars
of its national solvency bombing countries which never attacked it post 9-11.
China's leaders (unlike our own) never LIED its people into launching obscenely expensive,
illegal wars of aggression across the middle east. (WMD's, Mushroom clouds, Yellow Cake,
etc.)
China has used its wealth and resources to build up its infrastructure, build out its
capital markets, and turbo charge its high tech sectors. As a consequence, it has lifted
nearly half a billion people out of poverty. There has been an explosion in the growth of the
"middle class" in China. Hundreds of millions of Chinese are now living comfortable "upwardly
mobile" lives.
The USA, on the other hand, having been defrauded by its "ruling elites" into launching
and fighting endless illegal wars, is now 23 trillion dollars in catastrophic debt.
NOT ONE PENNY of this heinous "overspending" has been dedicated to building up OUR
infrastructure, or BUILDING OUT our middle class.
It has all gone into BLOWING UP countries which never (even) attacked us on 9-11.
As a consequence , the USA is fast becoming a failed nation, a nation where all its wealth
is being siphoned into the hands of its one percent "war pilfer-teers".
It is so sad to have grown up in such an amazing country , with such immense resources and
possibilities, and having to bear witness to it going down the tubes.
To watch all our sovereign wealth being vaporized by our "lie us into endless illegal war"
ruling elites is truly heartbreaking.
The white middle class is the only group that might effectively resist Globohomo's designs on
total power.
Blacks? Too dumb. Will be disposed of once Globohomo is finished the job.
Hispanics? Used to corrupt one party systems. Give them cerveza and Netflix and they're
good.
East Asians? Perfectly fine with living like bug people.
South Asians? Cowardly; will go with the flow.
The middle class is almost completely unique to white people.
Racial aliens cannot wrap their minds around being middle class. They think I'm crazy for
appreciating my 2009 Honda Accord. They literally cannot understand why somebody would want
to live a frugal and mundane life. They are desperate to be like Drake but most end up broke.
It will be very easy for GloboHomo to control a bucket of poor brown slop.
There IS a black middle class, but a big chunk of that works for governments of all
shapes and sizes.
Strictly speaking, there is no more "middle class" in the sense of the classical
economists: a person with just enough capital to live off the income if he works the capital
himself or herself. By this definition professionals (lawyers, dentists, physicians, small
store owners, even spinsters [1] and hand loom operators in a sense) were middle class. Upper
class had enough property to turn it over to managers, lower class had little or no property
and worked for others (servants and farm workers, for example). Paupers didn't earn enough
income per year to feed themselves and didn't live all that long, usually.
What we have is "middle income" people, almost all of whom work as an employee of some
organization -- people who would be considered "lower class" by the classical economists
because they don't have freedom of action and make no independent decisions about how the
capital of their organizations is spent. Today they are considered "intelligentsia", educated
government workers, or, by analogy, educated corporate workers. IMHO, intelligentsia is a
suicide job, and is responsible for the depressed fertility rate, but that's just me.
Back in the AD 1800s and pre-AD 1930 there were many black middle class people. usually
concentrating on selling to black clientele. Now there are effectively none outside of
criminal activities, usually petty criminal. And so it goes.
Of course, back then there were many white middle class people also, usually concentrating
on selling to white clientele. Now there are effectively none, except in some rural areas.
And so it goes.
Counterinsurgency
1] Cottagers who made their living spinning wool skeins into wool threads.
@unit472 A
lot of the middle class are Democrats but not particularly liberal. Many of them vote
Democrat only when they personally benefit. For example, my parents were suburban public
school teachers. They voted for Democrats at the state level because the Democrats supported
better pay and benefits for teachers but voted for Republicans like Goldwater and Reagan at
the national level because Republicans would keep their federal taxes lower. They had no
political philosophy. It was all about what left them financially better off. My parents also
got on well with their suburban neighbors. Suburbanites generally like their local school
system and its teachers and the suburban school systems are usually careful not to engage in
teaching anything controversial. A lot of the government employed white middle class would be
like my parents. Except in situations where specific Republicans talk about major cuts to
their pay and pensions they are perfectly willing to consider voting Republican. They are
generally social moderates, like the status quo, are fairly traditionalist and don't want any
radical changes. Since the Democrats seem be trending in a radical direction, this would put
off a lot of them. Trump would be more appealing as the status quo candidate. When running
the last time, he carefully avoided talking about any major cuts in government spending and
he's governed that way too. At the same time, his talk of cutting immigration, his lack of
enthusiasm for nonwhite affirmative action, and his more traditional views on social issues
is appealing to the white middle class.
The term middle class is used in the U.S. to mean middle income. It has nothing to do with
class. Why not just say what you mean? Most of the middle class that we say is disappearing
is really that rarest of phenomenons. A prosperous working class. The prosperous American
working class is no longer prosperous due to the Neoliberal agenda. Free trade, open borders
and the financialization of everything.
Americans know nothing of class dynamics. Not even the so called socialists. They don't
even see the economy. All they see is people with infinite need and government with infinite
wealth. In their world all of Central America can come to the U.S. and the government (if it
only wants to) can give them all homes, health care and education.
Lets stop saying class when we mean income. Not using the word class would be better than
abusing it.
Anyway. Yes. Middle Class denotes white people. The coalition of the fringes is neither
working, middle nor ruling class. They are black or brown. They are perverts or feminists. If
the workers among them identified as working class they would find common ground with the
Deplorables. We can't have that now can we.
Are we to the point where we've collectively resigned ourselves to the death of the
middle class?
In the neoliberal worldview, the middle class is illegitimate, existing only as a
consequence of artificial trade and immigration barriers. Anytime Americans are spied out
making a good living, there is a "shortage" that must be addressed with more visas. Or else
there is an "inefficiency" where other countries could provide said service or produce said
product for less because they have a "comparative advantage."
Anyway. Yes. Middle Class denotes white people. The coalition of the fringes is neither
working, middle nor ruling class. They are black or brown. They are perverts or feminists.
If the workers among them identified as working class they would find common ground with
the Deplorables. We can't have that now can we.
I don't know about that anymore. Increasingly, "middle class" means Asian, with Whiteness
being associated with the lower middle class (or perhaps "working class"). Sometimes the
media uses the term " noncollege Whites," which I think is actually very apt. They are the
ones who identify with Whiteness the most.
NemesisCalling @127: "I see that you never question the implication of what calling one a
fascist really means"
What is fascism? It usually has a religious component, be it Protestant, Catholic, Hindu,
Shinto, and yes, Muslim, Buddhist and even Jewish.
OK, so defining fascism by religion isn't going to get you anywhere as it runs the
gamut.
There are certainly white fascists, but there are also Black fascists, Japanese fascists,
Indian fascists, Chinese fascists, Latino fascists... I guess ethnicity won't get you
anywhere with explaining what fascism is either.
Nationalism? No, there are fascists of pretty much every nationality, so that hardly gets
us anywhere closer to understanding what it is.
A fetish for crisp uniforms? No, fascists are just as likely to wear filthy rancid goat
scented rags.
Fascist ideology is malleable. It morphs to be whatever it needs to be at the moment. So
the what is the one common aspect that fascism always possesses? Answer: In the class
war between labor and capital, fascists always back capital and oppose labor.
When it comes down to a street fight big business doesn't have the numbers to counter
labor from within their own class, and the capitalist elites don't want to get their hands
dirty anyway. As a consequence they must recruit goons and societal support for those goons
from the small business class, the sub-working-class, and from the working class itself to
defeat the working class. To accomplish this recruiting the capitalist elites use their
control over mass media to make appeals to every prejudice that exists in society to turn
those influenced by those prejudices against the working class. Every form of tribalism is
exploited, and since the precise characteristics of the major tribalist divisions in society
differ from region to region, and even neighborhood to neighborhood, the composition of the
fascist forces recruited to attack the working class tends to vary from place to place.
If fascism is so variable in all of its characteristics, how then can anyone say who is
and who isn't a fascist?
The answer to that is actually fairly easy. When the class war breaks out into the open,
as is the case in Bolivia right now, the people who are not lords of capital but still throw
their lot in with capital are fascists.
In other words, in North America and Europe, fascism is far more prevalent than most
people are willing to face.
Doesn't it make you feel better to know that fascism is just the proper name for
anti-socialist?
If AMLO were to invite the Americans into Mexico, he would be lynched. Few Americans are
aware of how much the United States is hated in Latin America, and for that matter in most of
the world. They don't know of the long series of military interventions, brutal dictators
imposed and supported, and economic rapine. Somoza, Pinochet, the Mexican-American War,
detachment of Panama from Colombia, bombardment of Veracruz, Patton's incursion–the list
could go on for pages. The Mexican public would look upon American troops not as saviors but as
invaders. Which they would be.
The incursion would not defeat the cartels, for several reasons that trump would do well to
ponder. To begin with, America starts its wars by overestimating its own powers,
underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the kind of war on which it is embarking. The
is exactly what Trump seems to be doing.
He probably thinks of Mexicans as just gardeners and rapists and we have all these beautiful
advanced weapons and beautiful drones and things with blinking lights. A pack of rapists armed
with garden trowels couldn't possibly be difficult to defeat by the US. I mean, get serious:
Dope dealers against the Marines? A cakewalk.
You know, like Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. That sort of cakewalk.
Let's think what an expedition against the narcos would entail, what it would face.
To begin with, Mexico is a huge country of 127 million souls with the narcos spread unevenly
across it. You can't police a nation that size with a small force, or even with a large force.
A (preposterous) million soldiers would be well under one percent of the population. Success
would be impossible even if that population helped you. Which it wouldn't.
Other problems exist. Many, many of them.
Let's consider terrain. Terrain is what militaries fight in. Start with the Sierra Madre,
which I suspect Trump doesn't know from Madre Teresa. This is the brutally inhospitable
mountain range in the northwest of Mexico, from which a great many of the narcos come.(Sinaloa
is next door.) Forestation is dense, slopes steep, communication only by narrow trails that the
natives know as well as you know how to find your bathroom. Nobody else knows them. American
infantry would be helpless here. The Narcos would be found only when they chose to be found,
which would not be at opportune moments.
The Sierra Madre Occidental, home of many of the drug traffickers. I have walked in these
mountains, or tried to. It is impossible for infantry, worse for armor, and airplanes can't see
through the trees.
The Tarahumara Indians live in the Sierra Madre. They frequent the trails, sometimes in
groups, and carry things not identifiable from the air. In frustration American forces would do
what they always do: start bombing, or launching Hellfires from drones, at what they think are,
or think may be, or hope might be, narcos. Frequently they would kill innocents having nothing
to do with drugs. This wouldn't bother the military, certainly not remote drone operators in
Colorado or somewhere. They get paid anyway. The Indians who just had their families turned
into science projects couldn't do anything about it.
Well, nothing but join the narcos, who might call this a "force multiplier."
Some other northern Mexican terrain. The Duarte Bridge between Sinaloa and Durango. A
company commander, looking at it, would would have PTSD in advance, just to get a start on
things.
Of the rest of Mexico, much consists of jungle, presenting the same problems as the Sierra
Madre, and of cities and villages. Here we encounter the problem that has proved disastrous for
US forces in war after war: there is no way to tell who is a narco and who isn't.
In cities and towns, narcos are indistinguishable from the general population.
How–precisely how, I want to know–would American troops, kitted out in body armor
and goggles and looking like idiots, fight the narcos in villages with which they were
unfamiliar? The narcos, well armed, would pick off GIs from windows, whereupon the Americans
would respond by firing at random, calling in air strikes, and otherwise killing locals. These
would now hate Americans. The narcos know this. They would use it.
Culiacan, Sinaloa, Chapo's home city. It has a high concentration of narcos. Suppose that
you are an infantry officer, sent to "fight the cartels." You have, say, twenty troops with
you, all with hi-tech equipment and things dangling. How do you propose to fight the cartels
here? Which of the people in the photo, if any, are narcos? You could ask them. That would
work.
Don't expect help from the locals. Most would much rather see you killed than the narcos.
And if they collaborated they and their families would be killed. This would discourage them.
Bright ideas?
Now a point that Schwarzehairdye in the White House has likely not grasped. The narcos are
Mexicans. So is the population. You know, brown, speak Spanish, that kind of thing. The
invaders would not be Mexicans. This matters. Villagers usually do not hate the narcos. These
provide jobs, buy their marijuana crops, often do Robin Hood things to help the locals. Pablo
Escobar did this, Al Capone, Chapo Guzman. There is a whole genre of popular music,
narcocorridos, celebrating the doings of the drug trade. (Corridos Prohibidos ,
by LosTigres del Norte, for example). Amazon has the CD.
Which means that they would side with the narcos instead of the already-hated soldiers,
putos gringos cabrones, que se chinguen sus putas madres.
Further, much of Mexico doesn't much like its government.
And of course the narcos will have the option of fading into the population and waiting for
the gringos to go home. This means that the invasion would become an occupation. The
invading forces would thus need bases, which would become permanent. Bases where? All over the
country, which is where the narcos are?
Getting the American military into one's country is much easier than getting it out. The
world knows this. Mexicans assuredly do. They know that America has wrecked country after
country in the Mideast, always to do something good about democracy and human rights. They know
that America is squeezing Venezuela to get control of its oil, squeezing Iran for the same
reason, attacked Iraq for the same reason, has troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the same
reason, and has just confiscated Syria's oil . Mexico has oil. So when Trump wants to send the
military to "help" fight drugs, what do you suppose the Mexicans suspect?
Another point: Roughly a million American expats live happily in Mexico. These would be
hostages, and they–we–are soft targets. The drones kill five narcos, and the narcos
kill five expats. Or ten, or fifty. What does Washington do now?
Finally, consider what happens when you bomb a country, make life dangerous, kill its
children, destroy the economy and impoverish its people? Answer: They go somewhere else. With
Mexico being made unlivable, Mexicans would have two choices of somewhere else, Guatemala and
.See whether you can fill in the blank. Maybe four or five million of them.
Nuff said. May God protect Mexico from Yanquis who would do it good, from advisers, and then
adviser creep, and then occupation, and then from badly led militaries who have no idea where
they are.
We Americans are less obvious, if also less subtle: we quickly transform our common story
into uncommon glory -- of a Continental Army standing unbowed before well-drilled Redcoats, of
a war against slavery that, within a generation, became a War for Southern Independence, or in
extolling the sacrifice of 58,000 Americans in a divisive intervention that became, less than a
half a decade later, a "noble cause." Not surprisingly, the truth is far more interesting than
any myth. The Continental Army at Valley Forge was not only ill-clothed, underpaid, and
desertion-riddled, its finest day had come not against British regulars but mercenary Hessians;
the War for Southern Independence was waged to eliminate a racial blight that, when the war
began, had already seen its best (or, rather, worst), days, while the "noble cause" of Vietnam
featured a
military that , by 1971, was "in a state approaching collapse, with individual units
avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where
not near-mutinous."
The substitution of myth for fact, however, has its uses -- as one of our greatest soldiers,
General George Patton, certainly knew. While Patton was an indifferent student (he flunked
mathematics at West Point), he was an avid reader with a prodigious memory and a finely tuned
sense of history. Which makes his speech to the Third Army on June 5 of 1944 (as celebrated in
Hollywood's epic 1970 paean), all the more remarkable, as it extols a history we wish we had --
but don't: "Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this
war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit," Patton announced. "Americans love to fight,
traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."
But Patton was just getting started. "Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a
loser," he went on to say. "Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all the time. I
wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never
lost nor will ever lose a war; for the idea of losing is hateful to America."
Of course, very little of this was actually true -- even in 1944, two decades before
Vietnam. All Americans love the sting and clash of battle? Not really. In January of 1781, in
the midst of the American Revolution, 1500 soldiers of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey lines of
the Continental Army mutinied, murdered their officers, and threatened to march on
Philadelphia.
When the mutiny spread, Washington had the mutineers rounded up, arrested, and their
ringleaders shot by a firing squad made up of their
fellow soldiers . On July 10 of 1863, one week after the Battle of Gettysburg, the New York
draft riots protesting conscription set fire to 50 buildings, lynched 11 black bystanders, and
left 120 civilians dead. The insurrection (as it was called by city officials), was finally
quelled by the New York State Militia. And in late 1944, while commanding in Europe, Dwight
Eisenhower was so angered by the reports of teeming throngs of American deserters raping and
looting their way through France that he considered "lining them up and mowing them down."
Americans have never lost a war? It doesn't take a trained historian to point out that the
American military botched the War of 1812 (the White House was burned and Washington occupied),
performed poorly (and genocidally) in the Indian Wars of the late 19th century (in which one of
its most famous units, the 7th Cavalry, was erased from existence), and mishandled the brutal
1899 Philippine Insurrection -- during which Mark Twain described American soldiers as
"uniformed assassins." Patton was no dummy and might have recited all of this himself. But his
speech made for good copy (and, as it turned out, great cinema) and undoubtedly boosted morale,
particularly for those who, within a short time, would be facing off against the best light
infantry in the history of the world.
But while historical myths have their place in creating a national story, France, China, and
Russia have, in turn (and over time), chosen truth over triumph -- exhuming the greatness of
Napoleon, Mao, and Lenin,
while burying forever the policies they followed . This is true also for the United States.
For while we Americans readily adopt the regalia of our past, we expect that our institutions
will not follow suit; that in the midst of failure, our policymakers will discard myths and
choose reality.
This is what happened, famously, on March 25, 1968 when President Lyndon
Johnson met with a group he called "the wise men" -- a wizened crew of 14 Washington
policymakers to help him decide what to do about the worsening situation in Vietnam. Included
in the group was former secretary of state Dean Acheson, former White House counsel Clark
Clifford, former ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., and former JCS chairman
General Omar Bradley.
These officials had traditionally supported Johnson's Vietnam policies but now, in the wake
of the disastrous Tet Offensive, they had second thoughts. Stunned by the ferocity of the
Vietnamese attack, only two of the 14 (Maxwell Taylor and Abe Fortas) recommended that Johnson
"stay the course." The shift was symbolized by Omar Bradley, a military icon. Victory? "Maybe
we ought to lower our sights," he told Johnson.
Of course, while the March 1968 meeting of the wise men was crucial to America's adventure
in Vietnam (and Lyndon Johnson's political future), it did little to dampen the controversy
surrounding the war -- which has been refought, since, in the pages of the war's histories.
Indeed, it seems axiomatic that what cannot be won on a battlefield is often alchemized in
later accounts.
These bloodless campaigns, fought with pen rather than sword, turn defeats into victories,
burnish reputations, assess blame, but also blight understanding and blemish history. This is
particularly true when it comes to America's most controversial conflicts. In 1869, Confederate
Major General Dabney Herndon Maury founded the Southern Historical Society. Its papers, later
collected in 52 volumes, rewrote much of Civil War history, a tendentious rendering whose goal
was to argue the justness of the Lost Cause. Many of the society's papers remain troubling,
rehabilitating the image of the most famous and otherwise failed rebel leaders, while laying
the blame for the Confederate loss at the feet of southerners who, in later years, conceded the
Union victory. The papers also remain controversial because their most important claims (that Lee lost at
Gettysburg because his orders were disobeyed, that soldier-for-soldier, the southern armies
were simply better fighters than their northern counterparts) resulted from barely veiled
pro-southern and racially tinged political agendas. You'd have thought the South had won the
war.
The same holds true for Vietnam. In that war's aftermath, while much of America was trying
to forget the conflict, a small group of respected historians continued to pick at its scab,
leaving a blood trail of if-onlys in their wake. The most prominent of these historians was
Lewis "Bob" Sorley, a respected former officer and celebrated biographer (of Creighton Abrams
and William Westmoreland, among others), whose book on Vietnam, A Better War , has been
the subject of controversy since its publication in 1999.
In A Better War , Sorley argued that the U.S. might have won in Vietnam, if only that
nation's top commander in the conflict had discarded his costly and morale-sapping
search-and-destroy strategy in favor of maintaining the security of South Vietnam's population,
substituted clear-and-hold tactics for massive sweep operations, improved the training and
equipping of South Vietnam's military, decreased the destruction of U.S. firepower -- and
supported the South Vietnamese, instead of abandoning them.
The conclusions ignited a bonfire of criticism, particularly from some of the Army's more
respected thinkers. Writing in the pages of The National Interest in 2012, retired
Colonel Gian Gentile took on Sorley in a pointed critique that proposed that America should
have never been in Vietnam in the first place.
"In war, political and societal will are calculations of strategy, and strategists in
Vietnam should have discerned early on that the war was simply unwinnable based on what the
American people were willing to pay," Gentile wrote .
"Once the war started and it became clear that to prevail meant staying for an unacceptable
amount of time, American strategy should have moved to withdraw much earlier than it did.
Ending wars fought under botched strategy and policy can be every bit as damaging as the wars
themselves."
Put simply, Sorley argues that the Vietnam War could have been won, if only the U.S. had the
will to prevail, while Gentile responds that because the American people did not have the will
to prevail, the war should have never been fought.
The spat over the Civil War and Vietnam doesn't necessarily mean that history repeats
itself, but it does get rewritten -- and rethought. The same is now true for the war in Iraq.
The Army War College's weighty two-volume study of the 2003 Iraq conflict ( The U.S. Army in
the Iraq War ), has sparked a divisive mini-controversy among the uniformed services, whose
senior officers regularly debate its major conclusions (as I noted in The American
Conservative , online,
back in February ): that U.S. commanders didn't understand the country they invaded, made
assumptions about an enemy that proved to be wrong, didn't have enough soldiers to win the
fight, who bungled the military's detention policies, and who failed in their mission to train
and equip the Iraqi armed forces.
But any praise for these conclusions has been muted by the study's other (Sorley-like)
judgment: that, as in Vietnam -- where the villains were the antiwar movement and the Congress,
the villains in Iraq are George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the former blamed for too quickly
getting us in, the latter for too quickly getting us out.
Into this affray has now jumped a much shorter (at 292 pages), offering, written by a team
of nine experts and researchers at the Rand Corporation. The U.S. Army and the Battle for Baghdad , gives us what
the Army War College didn't -- an unvarnished and precise accounting of what went wrong and
why, and without the tendentious political overtones of the tome-like AWC study. This shouldn't
come as a surprise. Among the study's authors are two of the Army's leading thinkers: retired
Colonels David E. Johnson and Gian Gentile, the latter the outspoken Sorley critic known in the
military for his often-scathing ability to say what he means.
Johnson, on the other hand, is known for his counter-intuitive and often uncomfortable
question of given premises, which has made him a valued interlocutor in the upper echelons of
the Army. The likely result of the study (much talked about in the military prior to its
release earlier this year), is that it has had a far greater impact than its 1200-plus page
predecessor. The U.S. Army and the Battle for Baghdad is not a page-turner, unless of course
you're an Army officer, but it lays out in precise detail the eight lessons the military can,
and should learn, from Operation Iraqi Freedom. But most readers will find the study's
understated third chapter, on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, among the most compelling written on
the war.
At the center of this presentation is the unshifting, unalterable truth of the war -- -that
the dysfunction obvious at the upper levels of the U.S. military following the fall of Baghdad
mirrored a deeper civilian-military chasm in Washington. The result of the dysfunction was that
the initial Battle for Baghdad was simply a prelude to a continuing battle for Baghdad, that
the war, once ended, simply continued.
The study's authors issue this crisp judgment, which is starkly at odds with the AWC
study:
"While much of the blame for the shortcomings of postwar planning rightly falls on senior
rungs of the Bush administration, the truth of the matter is that there is more than enough
blame to go around, up and down the chains of command in military and civilian planning."
Military officers speak candidly of the problem: "I don't think that any of us either could
have or did anticipate the total collapse of this regime," Lt. General William Wallace told the
authors, "and the psychological impact it had on the entire nation."
In military history, this is "the Henry Wentz problem." Henry Wentz was born in York County
in Pennsylvania in 1827, but moved with his family to nearby Gettysburg when he was nine. He
spent his most formative years on his family farm, which was just south of the town and off the
Emmitsburg Road.
As a young adult Henry went to Martinsburg (then in Virginia), married a local girl and
became a carriage maker. When the Civil War came he joined the Confederate Army, serving as an
ordnance sergeant in Taylor's Virginia Battery. On July 2, 1863, Wentz found himself manning
his rebel guns in his family's front yard, at Gettysburg, as a part of Longstreet's bloody
assault on the Union Army's III Corps. Lee had attacked with Longstreet that day to unhinge the
Union line, planning to take the high ground around the Wentz farm at a peach orchard, which
Lee thought was a dominating position.The orchard, owned by the Sherfy family (and hence
referred to as the Sherfy Peach Orchard in battle histories) seemed to rise out of the ground
and command the fields beyond. The problem was that Sherfy's orchard didn't dominate anything.
It was not on a rise, it did not control the land beyond. The orchard's height, if you stand on
it, is an optical illusion. A short discussion with Henry Wentz might have shown this, if only
Lee had known that Wentz was there.
He didn't.
For military officers commanding thousands or hundreds of thousands of young men and women,
for military experts whose job it is to study these operations -- -and not just for hobbyists
or aficionados -- the Henry Wentz problem is a tolling bell, a heart stopping
wake-you-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night realization that not knowing , particularly when
lives are at stake, is an unforgivable blunder. Reading about Gettysburg many years later,
generations of Civil War historians, reclining by their firesides, want to scream at Lee: "What
do you mean you didn't know ?" And that is the value of The U.S. Army and the Battle
of Baghdad -- -and the effect of William Wallace's seemingly mundane, if stunning,
observation. The U.S. military did not anticipate that the drive for Baghdad would be
difficult, did not anticipate that the Iraq Army would transform itself into an insurgency, did
not anticipate "the total collapse of the regime" -- and so did not anticipate the tragedy that
followed. To which we too want to scream: what do you mean you didn't anticipate? It was
your job to anticipate."
It is long past time that the senior military leadership with Iraq invasion (not to
ignore the Afghan debacle) and since be held accountable for multitude of blunders and poor
performance overall.
The fawning adulation from the press serves no good purpose and simply perpetuates the
waste and fraud that gives us more blunders and weapons systems and "strategies" that do
not and could not work to specs and plans.
But as the article states, there is plenty of blame to go around, I am referring to the
"political Leadership" of bush, obama, and now trump, and of course, congress. Leadership
may be too kind a term for what passes for leadership.
no issues holding the military mistakes to account. But these choices were politically
made and the political leadership should not be permitted to scapegoat the military for the
leaderships choices to engage in regime change which included purging military
dissenters.
Full agreement here. In fact, it's rather silly to strike at the military leaders, people
trained in war, for supporting war. It's like complaining about a scientist who decides to
solve every crisis with attaching it to the Internet.
The generals look at ways to fight a war. It's the political leaders that determine if
war is the right idea. That's why it's the elected leaders, not the military, that hold the
keys. All of the manipulations of the DoD end once we have a Congress and White House that
wants it to end.
Honestly I respect the idea of going after the past leaderships that sent us here, but
really I'd be content with just finding a leadership that stops the train now and leave the
old guard to their retirements. That's going to be difficult as it is without us turning on
a revenge campaign that might turn ugly.
It's a relatively minor point in the article, but I would agree with those who claim that
man-for-man the Confederates were better soldiers than the Yankees. They held out for 4
years against the US, whose forces were numerically superior and far better equipped and
supplied, while managing to inflict more military casualties on their foes than they
suffered. In the same way, I'd also agree with the many historians and WWII veterans who
claim that the Germans were man-for-man better soldiers than any of their enemies. Both the
American Civil War and WWII were essentially wars of attrition. Losing such a war is no
military disgrace but it also doesn't mean that the losing side had a noble cause. In most
wars, there are no good guys.
in what way were the confederate soldiers better "man for man"?
US soldiers got slaughtered wholesale throughout the war - yet they had the spirit to
keep coming. They got slaughtered wholesale because they used tactics developed for the
previous generation of small arms. The tactic of marching at the enemy packed together.
As James McPherson describes in "Battle Cry of Freedom" they got slaughtered because
they 1) had to fight on offense and 2) they were using tactics designed for the previous
generation of small arms. They used tactics designed for weak-firing in accurate muskets
rather than the current generation of rifles - accurate and deadly from long ranges.
They used the tactic of massing men together and marching at the enemy. This worked for
muskets. For rifles loaded with minie balls, it made them sitting ducks when they marched
towards dug in Confederates.
This article's author, Mr. Perry, mentions the slaughter of the Confederate soldiers at
the peach orchard. A slaughter that resulted from the Confederates having to walk across a
long rise of land before they could engage with the enemy. The slaughter that was said to
have begun the defeat the Confederates. An awful slaughter.
The US soldiers didn't have just one peach orchard, they had many. They had "cold
harbor", they had "the bloody angle", they had "Marye's heights". Dug in confederates armed
with rifles mangled US soldiers horribly. Mangled them as they marched, out in the open,
well within rifle range, towards dug in and hidden Confederates.
Yet the Union soldiers had the spirit to keep on coming. It's like "Butch Cassidy and
The Sundance Kid". As Perry points out, post Civil War Southern supporting writers
romanticized the poor, starving, southern infantryman. He was handsome, stoic, and a
fighter. But it was the northern guys who kept on coming. Kept on coming despite seeing so
many of their friends torn to pieces.
Northern soldiers who had the stuff to get the job done.
So the more numerous side that has the spirit to keep coming despite enormous casualties
and because of bad tactics are by definition better soldiers than the less numerous side
which using good tactics has the spirit to keep fighting until they finally run out of
effective fighters? By this standard the more numerous are always better soldiers as long
as they win in the end, which they usually will in a war of attrition. By this standard,
the Russians were far better soldiers than the Germans in WWII. Hint - the term man-for-man
indicates I am measuring quality rather than just quantity and quality in soldiers includes
tactical proficiency, not just bravery.
War is an obsolete idea. 1000 years ago, the only way to increase your wealth was to take
over someone else's land and enthrall the local population to farm it for you. 200 years
ago it was necessary to capture a population in order to force them to only purchase your
manufactured goods, so your capitalists didn't have to compete with those of other
countries.
In a information/service economy, war and control over other populations serve no
purpose. The DOD, like all grand bureaucracies, survives only through the corruption of
Congress.
It is time to disband the military. Get rid of the Navy, but leave the Coast Guard. Then
turn the Coast Guard over to the States. Disband the Army and Marine Corps. Let the State's
maintain their National Guards if they want. Disband the Air Force. The federal government
should just maintain a nuclear deterrent force and set up a coastal missile defense that
can destroy any Navy attempting to sail to attack us.
Have the federal government manufacture everything it needs itself instead of handing
over tax payer dollars which are then used to corrupt Congress. It's time.
I look forward to further articles on the military's culture of not knowing. I've spent
my whole adult life around Army personnel. (mostly retired). Going off to do things
half-cocked is a point of pride with them. It's a macho trait that they love about
themselves. Being willing to take action even though they haven't spent much time assessing
the forces in their way.- being willing to wade into unknown danger.
Pondering things seriously is weakness - in their view.
further, at least one of these unlikely seeming new proponents of traditional
masculinity - Jordan Peters - celebrates this macho trait. The macho trait of taking action
without considering all knowable facts.
"the War for Southern Independence was waged to eliminate a racial blight that, when the
war began, had already seen its best (or, rather, worst)"
The comforting notion that slavery was destined to "fade away" was frequently indulged
in during the 250 plus years that it lasted in the U.S., but it never did. As for the Wentz
anecdote, if Lee had talked with Wentz, the outcome of the war would not have changed.
There is an interesting "sabermetric" study of generals you can find online that gives a
particularly interesting picture of Lee. He was one of the most aggressive generals in
history, fighting more battles than anyone except Napoleon. But he was also--wait for
it--BELOW AVERAGE. (Please don't spill your mint julip.) Grant, on the other hand, was one
of the 10 best ever.
Slavery was on the way out and in another generation was gone throughout the western world,
including the African colonies, and surviving only in Arabia. Only in the US and Haiti was
slavery ended by wars and horrific bloodshed. In all other countries, including the vast
slave empire of Brazil, slavery was abolished with minimal to no casualties. A bit of
patience on the part of the abolitionists and unionists would have led to a somewhat later
but peaceful end of slavery in the southern US. The union of all the states may not have
been preserved, but in my estimation that would have been a good thing, if achieved
peacefully.
The military planners knew what was needed to pacify Iraq in the invasion and occupation.
750,000 troops and 25B+ dollars. Darth Cheney knew the US public wouldn't accept that, so
they went in on the cheap, ignored the vast stores of conventional weapons, and Viceroy
Bremmer back-stabbed the Iraqi army, thus creating the insurgency. Why? Because Planned
Chaos is the most profitable, and taking Iraq oil off the market greatly enriched our
"Saudi friends" and lots of other producers in the region. Inflation-adjusted oil prices
more than doubled from 2003 to 2007.
As of early 2009, the surge had worked, were holding territory on turf Islamic savages
considered their own and were killing hoards of jihadi scum who were flocking there, pretty
much at will, who were being induced to do so at the behest of Bin Laden. Iraq was part of
a long term strategic regional strategy (kill them on their own turf) which was working
quite well as far as it got. 4000 dead US soldiers is a travesty under any circumstances,
but considering what we had accomplished it pales in comparison with Vietnam. Keep in mind
we stayed in Germany and Japan for decades after WWII to ensure our efforts were not
wasted.
Iraq was not a debacle until 0bama refused to negotiate an updated SOFA, effectively
surrendered (against military and other expert advice) and rendered every single US
military death to have been in vain.
stephen t johnson #77: "Whatever military assistance Russia gives the rebels is
about making sure they don't go too the left in fighting the fascists and making sure there are
no embarrassing wave of Russian-speaking refugees from Ukrainian fascism."
Putin is really afraid of leftism among Russian Ukrainians, and the "embarrassment" of an
exodus into Russia? Your whole paragraph stirs propagandistic bits of excuse-mongering into an
illogical mash. Look, Ukraine is a long complicated discussion but a simple overview is that
most of the country wants to ally with the EU and the eastern portion wants to ally with
Russia. Yes, there is a lot of corruption. Yes, Euromaidan (pro-EU) was probably 1/3 far right.
Yes, there are fascist parties. But the majority of the people want democracy and not fascism.
Instead these poor people got Zelensky being extorted by yet another thug.
(Vindman is correct, this is another disaster by Trump with longterm consequences for US
foreign policy. While the US Republicans have also gone thug, saying it's no big deal.)
If the Steinmeier formula holds and there are free elections in Donbass and the majority
votes for kicking out Putin, do you think Putin going to withdraw his Russian Army regulars?
Accompanying the annexation of Crimea was Putin's long letter to the international community
justifying his action because there were "nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and
anti-Semites" who are committing "pogroms and terror". This now appears to be mostly fiction
(perhaps enhanced by Putin's agent provocateurs).
stephen
t johnson #77: "Whatever military assistance Russia gives the rebels is about making sure they
don't go too the left in fighting the fascists and making sure there are no embarrassing wave
of Russian-speaking refugees from Ukrainian fascism."
Putin is really afraid of leftism among Russian Ukrainians, and the "embarrassment" of an
exodus into Russia? Your whole paragraph stirs propagandistic bits of excuse-mongering into an
illogical mash. Look, Ukraine is a long complicated discussion but a simple overview is that
most of the country wants to ally with the EU and the eastern portion wants to ally with
Russia.
Yes, there is a lot of corruption. Yes, Euromaidan (pro-EU) was probably 1/3 far right.
Yes, there are fascist parties. But the majority of the people want democracy and not fascism.
Instead these poor people got Zelensky being extorted by yet another thug. (Vindman is correct,
this is another disaster by Trump with long term consequences for US foreign policy.
While the
US Republicans have also gone thug, saying it's no big deal.) If the Steinmeier formula holds
and there are free elections in Donbass and the majority votes for kicking out Putin, do you
think Putin going to withdraw his Russian Army regulars? Accompanying the annexation of Crimea
was Putin's long letter to the international community justifying his action because there were
"nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and anti-Semites" who are committing "pogroms and
terror".
Lee Arnold@80 "Putin is really afraid of leftism among Russian Ukrainians, and the
"embarrassment" of an exodus into Russia? "
Yes, Putin does not want wholesale expropriation of oligarchs, as he does not stand for
that in Russia (selective prosecution sufficient to appear to be a defender of the people and
serve as a stick -- accompanied by carrots -- to negotiate oligarch support. Also, Putin
doesn't even want to pay pensions, he certainly doesn't want the embarrassment of refugees
neglected, or worse, costing.
This point rests on the premise Putin isn't a right-winger, which is absurd.
"If the Steinmeier formula holds and there are free elections in Donbass and the majority
votes for kicking out Putin, do you think Putin going to withdraw his Russian Army regulars?"
https://www.rferl.org/a/what-is-the-steinmeier-formula-and-did-zelenskiy-just-capitulate-to-moscow-/30195593.html
This source may not be right-wing enough for your tastes, of course. But for the rest of us,
it suggests that an if centered on the Steinmeier formula is disingenuous in itself.
It's not even clear that Zelensky hasn't rejected the Steinmeier formula! The problem with
re-unifying the country is the fascist regime is quite hostile to what it sees as unUkrainian
elements, namely Russian speakers. National purity are favorite fascist principles but none
of the rest of us are required to accept them. Your belief that an election supervised by the
fascist regime is free and fair is wrong, no matter what you imply. And frankly, the notion
the OSCE is surely neutral is dubious too.
There was never any reliable evidence of any significant numbers of regulars moving into
Donetsk and Lugansk, because no, media reports are not reliable when addressing official
enemies. It is almost certain there are advisors and mercenaries, copying the US model, but
they are not what is generally meant by an invasion. They have not stakes out a separate
territory as the US territory did in Syria. There are military reasons for setting up a
perimeter, for mission security if nothing else. In short, there is in fact quite simple
reasons for thinking, yes, Putin would stop spending money on Donetsk and Lugansk, and save
on weapons and withdraw his advisers.
Further, the casualties in the Russian Army's officer corps by the way would end up being
known to the Russian Army, and eventually everyone else concerned. But they're not. Equally,
the large numbers of regulars alleged would have been in the recent prisoner exchange, but
they weren't. Some of those as I recall had been arrested merely for subversion, not taken
prisoner of war. Casualties of course are not the only costs to Putin, there also being the
money and weapons. The thing is of course, these are all excellent reasons for Putin to
withdraw. You are tacitly presuming the conclusion, that Putin is a crazed warmonger unable
even to calculate self-interest. Substituting scorn for analysis is not becoming.
"Yes, there are fascist parties." This is entirely misleading. There are fascist armed
formations incorporated into the Ukrainian army, financed privately.
I can't actually read the article as it's paywalled but it's conservative enough to carry
weight here.
There's the bit about Haaretz, which is like the anti-socialists ginning up anti-semitism
smears against Corbyn. I say the stylized swastika on the stage with the PM of Ukraine shows
us more than an old letter. I have no idea how you can say the people murdered when a
building was set on fire and democratic mob drove people back in, don't somehow count as
"pogroms and terror."
But you missed a trick in pointing out "Jewish" opposition to "Putin." (The people in
Donestsk and Lugansk are no one? Except maybe pre-corpses?) Ihor Kolomoyskiy, the primary
funder/founder of the Azov battalion, definitely wants no part of "Putin."
Most of this discussion is rarely about the left, but here arises a major marker
distinguishing the left, which is anti-fascism. You're pro-fascist.
nastywoman@79 was so stung the comment was actually intelligible. Unfortunately, asserting
something which isn't nonsense -- unlike nastywoman's usual incoherence -- without a shred of
argument is naked hostility, not an argument. The gored ox bellows loud!
FILE PHOTO: Judges at the UN's highest court are seen during a hearing in a case launched
by Ukraine which alleges Moscow is funding pro-Russian separatist groups in Ukraine, in
The Hague, Netherlands June 3, 2019. REUTERS/Eva Plevier
Reading a summary of the ruling, Presiding Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf said conditions had been met
for the case to be heard in full, with the 16-judge panel rejecting Russian objections by a large
majority.
The International Court of Justice found that on the basis of anti-terrorism and
anti-discrimination treaties signed by both countries it has jurisdiction to hear the case over
Russia's alleged support for separatists in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
At a hearing in June, Moscow had asked judges to dismiss the suit, saying Kiev was using it as
pretext for a ruling on the legality of Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea.
Addressing that point, Yusuf said Ukraine had not asked the court to rule "on the status of
Crimea or on violations of the rules of international law" other than those contained in the United
Nations anti-discrimination and anti-terrorism treaties.
Kiev says Russia's support for separatist forces violated a U.N. convention banning the
funding of terrorist groups.
"... Until now, Iran has restrained itself despite constant aggression from Israel, but this could easily change. "The result could be a counterstrike by Iran, using cruise missiles that penetrate Israel's air defenses and smash into targets like the Kiryah, Tel Aviv's equivalent of the Pentagon. Israel would retaliate massively against Hezbollah's headquarters in Beirut as well as dozens of its emplacements along the Lebanese border. And then, after a day of large-scale exchanges, the real war would begin " ..."
In my 2011 book,
The Wandering Who
, I elaborated on the possible disastrous scenario in which Israel is the nucleus of a
global escalation over Iran's emerging nuclear capabilities. I concluded that Israel's PRE Traumatic Stress
Syndrome (PRE-TSS) would be central to such a development. "The Jewish state and the Jewish discourse in
general are completely foreign to the notion of temporality. Israel is blinded to the consequences of its
actions, it only thinks of its actions in terms of short-term pragmatism. Instead of temporality, Israel
thinks in terms of an extended present."
In 2011 Israel was still confident in
its military might, certain that with the help of America or at least its support, it could deliver a mortal
military blow to Iran. But this confidence has diminished, replaced by an existential anxiety that might
well be warranted. For the last few months, Israeli military analysts have had to come to terms with Iran's
spectacular strategic and technological abilities. The recent attack on a Saudi oil facility delivered a
clear message to the world, and in particular to Israel, that Iran is far ahead of Israel and the West. The
sanctions were counter effective: Iran independently developed its own technology.
Former Israeli ambassador to the US, and
prolific historian, Michael Oren, repeated my 2011 predictions this week in the
Atlantic
and described a horrific scenario for the next, and likely last, Israeli conflict.
Oren understands that a minor Israeli
miscalculation could lead to total war, one in which missiles and drones of all types would rain down on
Israel, overwhelm its defences and leave Israeli cities, its economy and its security in ruins.
Oren gives a detailed account of how a
conflict between Israel and Iran could rapidly descend into a massive "conflagration" that would devastate
Israel as well as its neighbours.
In Israel, the term
"The War Between the Wars
," refers to the targeted covert inter-war campaign waged by the Jewish State
with the purpose of postponing, while still preparing for, the next confrontation, presumably with Iran. In
the last few years Israel has carried out hundreds of 'war between the wars' strikes against Iran-linked
targets in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Oren speculates that a single miscalculation could easily lead to
retaliation by Iran. "Israel is girding for the worst and acting on the assumption that fighting could break
out at any time. And it's not hard to imagine how it might arrive. The conflagration, like so many in the
Middle East, could be ignited by a single spark."
Until now, Iran has restrained itself
despite constant aggression from Israel, but this could easily change. "The result could be a counterstrike
by Iran, using cruise missiles that penetrate Israel's air defenses and smash into targets like the Kiryah,
Tel Aviv's equivalent of the Pentagon. Israel would retaliate massively against Hezbollah's headquarters in
Beirut as well as dozens of its emplacements along the Lebanese border. And then, after a day of large-scale
exchanges, the real war would begin "
Oren predicts that rockets would "rain on
Israel" at a rate as high as 4,000 a day. The Iron Dome system would be overwhelmed by the vast simultaneous
attacks against civilian and military targets throughout the country. And, as if this weren't devastating
enough, Israel is totally unprepared to deal with precision-guided missiles that can accurately hit targets
all across Israel from 1000 miles away.
Ben Gurion International Airport would be
shut down and air traffic over Israel closed. The same could happen to Israel's ports. Israelis that would
seek refuge in far away lands would have to swim to safety
.
In this scenario, Palestinians and
Lebanese militias might join the conflagration and attack Jewish border communities on the ground while
long-range missiles from Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran land. Before long, Israel's economy would cease to
function, electrical grids severed and damaged factories and refineries would spew toxic chemicals into the
air.
In the Shoah scenario Oren describes,
"Millions of Israelis would huddle in bomb shelters. Hundreds of thousands would be evacuated from the
border areas as terrorists attempt to infiltrate them. Restaurants and hotels would empty, along with the
offices of the high-tech companies of the start-up nation. The hospitals, many of them resorting to
underground facilities, would quickly be overwhelmed, even before the skies darken with the toxic fumes of
blazing chemical factories and oil refineries."
Oren predicts that Israel's harsh
response to attack, including a violent put down of likely West Bank and Gaza protests, would result in
large scale civilian casualties and draw charges of war crimes.
As Oren states, he did not invent this
prediction, it is one of the similar scenarios anticipated by Israeli military and government officials.
If such events occur, the US will be
vital to the survival of the Jewish State by providing munitions, diplomatic, political, and legal support,
and after the war, in negotiating truces, withdrawals, prisoner exchanges and presumably 'peace agreements.'
However, the US under the Trump administration is somewhat unpredictable, especially in light of the current
impeachment proceedings against Trump.
In 1973 the US helped save Israel by
providing its military with the necessary munitions. Will the US do so again? Do the Americans have the
weapons capability to counter Iran's ballistics, precision missiles and drones? More crucially, what kind of
support could America provide that would lift the spirits of humiliated and exhausted Israelis after they
emerge from underground shelters having enduring four weeks without electricity or food and see their cities
completely shattered?
This leads us to the essential issue.
Zionism vowed to emancipate the Jews from their destiny by liberating the Jews from themselves. It vowed to
bring an end to Jewish self-destruction by creating a Jewish safe haven. How is it that just seven decades
after the founding of the Jewish state, the people who have suffered throughout their history have once
again managed to create the potential for their own disaster?
ORDER IT NOW
In The Wandering Who I provide a
possible answer: "Grasping the notion of temporality is the ability to accept that the past is shaped and
revised in the light of a search for meaning. History, and historical thinking, are the capacity to rethink
the past and the future." Accordingly,
revisionism
is the true essence of historical thinking. It
turns the past into a moral message, it turns the moral into an ethical act. Sadly this is exactly where the
Jewish State is severely lacking. Despite the Zionist promise to introduce introspection, morality and
universal thinking to the emerging Hebrew culture, the Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish
past because it doesn't really grasp the notion of the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.
Everyone understands that a minor Iranian miscalculation could lead to total war. One in which nuclear bombs
would rain down on Iran leaving its cities, economy, and security in ruins.
The sociopath, Ayatollah
Khameni is detached from reality and may be willing to take such risks. However, there is no reason to
believe that The Iranian military or civilian population will embrace certain suicide. It is quite likely
that the IRGC would decide that it is time for another revolution and end the theocracy, rather than die
following the dubious commands of a deranged Ayatollah.
____
The whole theory about a prolonged conflict falls apart once accurate facts are applied to the situation.
Iranian al'Hezbollah has large numbers of Katyusha pattern rockets, but very few precision weapons. And to
provide human shields for these weapons, almost all of them are in a limited number of urban centers.
The facts are clear, even if Gilad chooses to ignore them in favor of his personal fantasies. Iranian
al'Hezbollah would lose badly in a total forces engagement. The nuclear incineration of their rear echelons
would leave forward forces totally defenseless against overwhelming Israeli air superiority.
-- Would there be Israeli civilian casulities? Certainly.
-- Would Lebanon become uninhabitable? Yes.
-- Would Ayatollah Khameni perish when Israeli nukes Tehran? Absolutely.
______
There is no possible scenario where Iran "wins" if they launch a substantial first strike. And, the
Iranian military understands this as fact.
@A123
It is really fun when Gilad gets off Epstein and rape stuff and ventures into wars and Israeli security. The
generals have kept Gilad up to date on the latest and the greatest.
He is so out to lunch in his desire to see Israel panic and loose the next war facing horrible casualties
because it makes his point about how the Jews are doomed unless they cease being Jews.
He really believes
that he can solve the problem and change our destiny if we all read "Wondering
Who"
In The Wandering Who I provide a possible answer: "Grasping the notion of temporality is the ability
to accept that the past is shaped and revised in the light of a search for meaning. History, and
historical thinking, are the capacity to rethink the past and the future." Accordingly, revisionism is
the true essence of historical thinking. It turns the past into a moral message, it turns the moral into
an ethical act. Sadly this is exactly where the Jewish State is severely lacking. Despite the Zionist
promise to introduce introspection, morality and universal thinking to the emerging Hebrew culture, the
Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish past because it doesn't really grasp the notion of
the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.
I wonder what it is like to wish death and destruction on a people and a country to prove your point and
call yourself an unemotional Athenian.
@A123
As you may have noticed, in the Israeli apocalyptic scenarios the Jewish state doesn't put into play the
Samson option.. it is slightly less genocidal than yourself .. you may want to ask yourself why
Israel is making a terrible mistake. The oft touted "Sampson Option" is a bogus option as Bibi, Benny Gatz
and/or any other Israeli leader knows it will be suicide if they use this option. Because even if they
emerge from the bunkers days later after using nuclear bombs against Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other European
capitals (
Samson option targets Europe
) they will be greeted with hostility and will have no
sanctuary.
Three times in world history the Jews were rescued by the Persians.
Believe it or not.
However, the US under the Trump administration is somewhat unpredictable, especially in light of the
current impeachment proceedings against Trump.
Not at all unpredictable with regards to Israel. Trump and Congress would use the last cent of US
taxpayer's money and the last drop of Anglo blood to save the place. Trump is Israel's US Viceroy and
Congress is its Colonial Parliament.
Israel's real nightmare starts when US nationalists toss out the colonialists, and Israel has to find a
way live on its own resources.
I have to think that considering the failure of military intelligence agencies in the past that no one has
any real idea how close Iran is to getting the bomb. But even if they get numbers of them and have a means
to deliver them on target it simply would mean that Iran and Israel are in a standoff. I can understand how
Israel would not want Iran to have the bomb but in reality how much difference would it make? It would only
be relevant if the two countries had already blundered into war and things were entering a final disastrous
stage. Then it would simply mean both countries would be destroyed instead of just one.
Also, not being a military man am I naive in thinking Iran might be able to buy nuclear weapons on the black
market? From North Korea, perhaps? I have got to suspect Israel will be faced with two options. Either fight
Iran sooner, before they get nukes. Or they will simply have to accept that Iran is going to be a nuclear
power. It's pretty obvious that Israel has been trying to get America to fight their war for them. But Trump
has been reluctant to do so. No wonder the Jews are chomping at the bit to find some way to get rid of him.
2020 should prove to be an interesting year.
This analysis leaves out two very significant historic military facts:
1) The 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon aka the "33 Day War" where in:
"Hezbollah inflicted more Israeli casualties per Arab fighter in 2006 than did any of Israel's state
opponents in the 1956, 1967, 1973, or 1982 Arab-Israeli interstate wars, and is generally acknowledge that
Israel flat out lost that war and de facto sued for a cease fire.
(see: "U.S. Department of Defense. The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for
Army and Defense Policy." Kindle Edition.)
2) The Syrian army is currently the only army in the world that has multi-front, contiguous multi-year
'combined arms' (i.e. army, armor, artillery and air force) combat experience .
Further, the leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah in a recent interview pointed out that Hezbollah
fighting along side of the Syrian Army these past five years, now has experience in offensive warfare. In
2006 they fought strictly defensively.
In short, if an Israeli war comes again, given the experience of the Syrian and Hezbollah armies and
Syria acquiring state of the art air defense system (S 300, etc), Iranian missiles may very well be the
least of Israel's worries.
Indeed, before Iran launches missiles, Hezbollah and Syria may move to take back Shebaa Farms and Golan
Heights.
To my mind: Israel and American militaries are "paper Tigers". Israel has never fought a combined arms
war for a sustained period of time against an equally matched military. And the US not since Korea. Their
victories have always been overwhelming an inferior force.
@AaronB
For me the fact that the Jewish state indulges itself in apocalyptic and genocidal fantasies is really a
glimpse into to tribal mind.. as far as I can tell this pre traumatic stress points at severe form of
projection .. Israeli politicians and commentators attribute their own symptoms to their neighbours ..
@Rev. Spooner
' Three times in world history the Jews were rescued by the Persians.
Believe it or not.'
The Persians more or less created 'the Jews.' At any rate, a religion recognizable
as Judaism first appeared in the wake of the Persian conquests.
However, when did the Persians 'rescue' the Jews?
They allowed the creation of an autonomous Jewish state in Palestine when they overran that place around
the beginning of the seventh century AD -- but that only lasted for about twenty years anyway.
@A123
If I may: I don't know for sure what G Atzmon meant by the Samson Option; but, I have come across this
express before and I took it to mean that Israel will go to nuclear war even if means the destruction of the
Jewish State. That is, like Samson who destroyed his enemies by killing himself; Israel nuec's Iran and Iran
nuce's Israel (kills enemies and itself).
This should not be taken lightly. While it would be totally irrational for most states to take the Samson
Option, it is to my mind a plausible option for Israel. For even if the Jewish State is destroyed, the
Jewish Nation i.e. the Jewish people around the world will survive and continue on as they have these
thousands of years. But, they will be free of what they perceive as their arch enemy i.e. Iran and other
Moslems. They survived the metaphoric Holocaust and they will survive a literal one. The Jewish State may be
destroyed but not the Jewish People.
This is something not enough people comment on. Israel's military is not a mini US military, it has serious
problems and takes losses and casualties in contexts that would be shocking for another Western country that
spends as much per capita for it's military.
This is why Israel having nuclear weapons irks me so much, the more it can't rely on it's conventional
military, the more they'll lean into their nuclear deterrent, increasing the probability of it's use. (Not
dissimilar to the situation with Pakistan vis-a-vis India, though in that case, India has nukes too)
@Tom Verso
The Samson Option
The Samson Option.jpg
Author Seymour Hersh
Country United States
Language English
Genre Non-fiction
Publisher Random House
Publication date
1991
Media type Print (Hardback)
Pages 362 pp
ISBN 0-394-57006-5
OCLC 24609770
Dewey Decimal
355.8/25119/095694 20
LC Class UA853.I8 H47 1991
The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy is a 1991 book by Seymour Hersh. It
details the history of Israel's nuclear weapons program and its effects on Israel-American relations. The
"Samson Option" of the book's title refers to the nuclear strategy whereby Israel would launch a massive
nuclear retaliatory strike if the state itself was being overrun, just as the Biblical figure Samson is said
to have pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and
thousands of Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated.
According to The New York Times, Hersh
relied on Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli government employee who says he worked for Israeli intelligence,
for much of his information on the state of the Israeli nuclear program. However, Hersh confirmed all of
this information with at least one other source.[1] Hersh did not travel to Israel to conduct interviews for
the book, believing that he might have been subject to the Israeli Military Censor. Nevertheless, he did
interview Israelis in the United States and Europe during his three years of research.[1]
@Fran Taubman
' If you study it, can be pretty scary. It is not just Israel. Also who wants another North Korea
blackmail game?'
You mean something like the Samson option?
Anyway, the whole discussion is silly.
No nation
-- and that included Imperial Japan in 1945, when
the chips were down -- chooses self-immolation. They always give way. Iran isn't a threat to Israel because
Iran's not going to commit national suicide, and 'the Samson Option' is bullshit as well, because six
million Jews aren't going to commit national suicide either.
Zionists such as yourself only choose to think otherwise about Iran -- in spite of the absence of any
historical evidence at all -- because it justifies your own pathological aggression towards a nation that is
(a) a thousand miles away, and (b) poses no serious threat to Israel whatsoever.
Try not attacking literally everyone you can think of. That might help. I mean, fuck -- Israel is the only
state in modern history that has attacked literally
every single one
of her neighbors, and several
more besides. Since 1948, she's attacked Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, and even the
United States. What's up?
Despite the Zionist promise to introduce introspection, morality and universal thinking to the
emerging Hebrew culture, the Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish past because it
doesn't really grasp the notion of the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.
The Jews are always long-term losers because they teach their children that they have always been and
will forever be victims of humanity. Jew children are traumatized at an immature young age – they are
mentally damaged by the thought that humanity wants to kill them and do them harm. This notion is inculcated
deep in the Jew child's psyche. These poor children can never escape what has been implanted. (For three
thousand years, generation after generation, Jew culture has been abusing their children with dreadful
thoughts.)
Nine out of ten adult Jews are triggered into thoughts of doom by any criticism of Israel – their
reactions are visceral, and a pure reflex coming out of their brainstem.
Jews cannot be introspective because of what elder Jews have implanted in them in their youth. Their
rational emotional systems have been short-circuited.
I have seen intelligent Jews on this forum flirt with empathy for Palestinians – only to fall back into
mindless reflexive support of whatever Israel does.
Jews Are Feeling Guilty: They Should Be. Their Influence Has Been Cancerous to America
Gilad Atzmon Wed, Nov 6, 2019
It has become an institutional Jewish habit to examine how much Jews are hated by their host nations
and how fearful Jews are of their neighbours. Jewish press outlets reported yesterday that "9 out of 10
US Jews worry about anti-Semitism."
. . .
As Haartez writer Ari Shavit wrote back in 2003: "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative
intellectuals, most of them Jewish " Maybe some Jews now understand that the Zionist shift from a
'promised land' to the Neocon 'promised planet' doesn't reflect well on the Jews as a group.
Any separation of one group from another is a tribe. Any identity whatsoever is a tribe – because
identity sets you apart. The moment you define yourself you are tribal, because definitions distinguish
one thing from another.
The issue is that some people are not particularly tribal (i.e. Westerners) and they are open to
multiculturalism – i.e. proposition nations. However, proposition nations are very much non-tribalist places
and need non-tribalism to survive.
If tribalists talk multiculturalism and proposition nations (i.e. use deception) while practicing
tribalism, they quickly overwhelm these societies – which is where the US is today with regards to Jewish
tribalists.
What does a Jewish tribalist elite do next? And what does a (subjected) majority do next?
Michael Oren, repeated my 2011 predictions this week in the Atlantic and described a horrific scenario
for the next, and likely last, Israeli conflict.
The purpose of Oren's Atlantic article was to create alarm in the DC political corridors .."warning' that
if the US doesnt 'soon help Israel' with its Iran enemy there will be chaos and dead bodies galore .
Its propaganda but 'true' propaganda 'if' Israel were to attack Iran on their own but they wont .they aren't
capable of it alone.
They are running this same propaganda articles/warnings in Europe, saying Europe needs to 'do something'
about Iran Now!
Its basically a blackmail and scare ploy because they don't think Trump will do it for them .and of course
if Israel starts a war it will be because Trump/US deserted them like he/we did the Kurds and they were
'forced' to try and defend the world against Iran 'all alone' and Israel isn't to blame for the mess lol.
What Israel will do is try to start a war on Hezbollah 'first, as Hezbollah would be their most immediate
and dangerous threat , severely crippling Israel right at the onset of any war with Iran.
They will claim that Iran directed attacks on Israel and so the US should step in because its an attack by
Iran.
If we had anyone in DC that wasn't bought off by Jewish 'benjamin's ' they would be laughing their asses
off at this typical Jewish tactic.
Everyone understands that a minor Iranian miscalculation could lead to total war. One in which nuclear
bombs would rain down on Iran leaving its cities, economy, and security in ruins.
The sociopath, Ayatollah Khameni is detached from reality and may be willing to take such risks.
However, there is no reason to believe that The Iranian military or civilian population will embrace
certain suicide. It is quite likely that the IRGC would decide that it is time for another revolution and
end the theocracy, rather than die following the dubious commands of a deranged Ayatollah.
Kristol, you're drunk. Turn off the computer and go to bed, you shmuck.
That was the goal.
Remember the Zios in Rumsfeld's pentagon stressing how the US must dump 'old Europe"?
Even a non genius like me could figure that out .old Europe might be too much of a 'restraining ' influence
on the US.
The Jews hate Europe anyway ..just like they hate Russia.
Some interesting things popped up this week .Vindman , main testifier against Trump on Ukraine is a
Ukraine Jew, Solderman,Trump's main man on Ukraine is a Jew, also has now testified against Trump, their
attorney is also a Jew ..they all have issued statements about how the plucky "little Ukraine is fighting
against Russia for the US and world" and needs our aid and so on. Exactly the same wording and bullshit spin
the Jews use about Israel "fighting Iran to protect the US and world interest".
Plain to me the Uber Jews are trying to set up the Ukraine as a Israel satellite and weight on Russia's
flank.
I read Vindman's testimony to congress ..something is very off about the guy. he sounded numerous times
like he lost his script. He's, in his own words, a fanatical supporter of Ukraine . I don't like Trump but I
think the Ukraine deal to impeach him is a set up ..and its not coming mainly from the CIA ,its coming from
the Nat Sec Council that Vindman works for.
It is terrifying to think that in the event Israel be run by psychopaths, they might sacrifice another "6
million", while securing themselves a new Zion.
On the other hand, a peaceful transfer of the occupation of Palestine to Patagonia (and elsewhere),
without the trigger of war, would be a possible path to peace in the Middle East (not so ideal for Patagonia
though).
What would it take for either outcome to pass? I fear the former is far more likely than the latter.
I don't like Trump but I think the Ukraine deal to impeach him is a set up ..and its not coming mainly
from the CIA ,its coming from the Nat Sec Council .
From the Medium article "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be Very, Very
Worried"
"I don't think dirt-digging would offend Bolton. What would offend Bolton is interrupting
military supplies to a country in a deadly battle with Russia. Doing something that for
whatever reason appeases Putin," Thielmann said."
The country referred to is Ukraine. I guess I've missed all the msm articles detailing all
those deadly clashes between Russian & Ukrainian military units along with casualty
figures and all that. I suppose I need to pay closer attention (or something).
UN says 12,800–13,000 killed since April 2014. So Congress bought a pile of Javelin
AT munitions, the ones with a top attack flight profile that will place a high explosive
shape-charge of molten copper through tops of young Russian tank commanders' heads, who are
sons of Putin's base, if there was a mechanized push further into Ukraine. [The political
tolerance window for which is narrowing.]
Our benevolent leader said, "Hold-on. You gotta first get your FBI to clear my campaign
and come up with some trumped-up charges against my political opponent. My FBI won't do it."
Congressional impoundment, solicitation of a bribe for personal gain, and abuse of power. In
any case, Ukraine's getting a smaller pile of missiles until next year, so, gross incompetent
moves, both domestic and abroad.
You recall that the Obama administration opposed giving Ukraine any lethal assistance?
Congress has just come up with an excellent method of giving the Russians a lot of free
Javelins if there were a serious fight. Which there continues to be no sign of.
The great bulk of (pro-government) Ukrainian casualties occurred in the course of
ill-advised and poorly conducted offensives against the breakaway republics. When it only
defends, the Ukrainian side doesn't suffer casualties. Because nobody attacks it.
Andrew Bacevich
describes how the U.S. learned all the wrong lessons from the fall of the Berlin Wall and
the end of the Cold War:
You won't hear it from any of the candidates vying to succeed Trump, but we are still
haunted by our false conception of the Cold War. On the stump, politicians get away with
reciting comforting clichés about the imperative of American global leadership. Yet
the time for believing such malarkey is long gone.
An essential first step toward recoupling national security policy and reason is to see
the Cold War for what it was: not a "long, twilight struggle" ending in victory, but a vast
and costly tragedy that inflicted needless suffering, brought humankind absurdly close to
extinction, and from which U.S. policymakers have drawn all the wrong lessons.
The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall offers an occasion not for celebration but
for somber and long overdue reflection.
One of the wrong lessons that U.S. policymakers drew from the events of 1989-1991 was that
the U.S. was chiefly responsible for ending and "winning" the Cold War, which inevitably
overestimated our government's capabilities and effectiveness in affecting the political
fortunes of other parts of the world. The far more critical and important role of the peoples
of central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself in overthrowing the system that had
oppressed them was pushed into the background as much as possible. The U.S. took credit for
their success and policymakers frequently attributed the outcome to the policies of the late
Cold War rather than to the deficiencies and failings of the other system. After waging
stalemated and failed wars in the name of anticommunism, U.S. policymakers wanted to be able to
claim that they had "won" something, and so they declared victory for something that they
hadn't caused.
The period that followed the dissolution of the USSR was one of triumphalism, expansion, and
overreach. The U.S. not only congratulated itself for achieving something that was accomplished
by others, but it also assumed that it could achieve similar results in other parts of the
world. If NATO had been a great success as a defensive alliance, the "thinking" went, why
shouldn't it continue and expand to include many more countries? If the U.S. was supposedly
able to bring down the Soviet Union, why shouldn't it do the same to authoritarian regimes
elsewhere? Absent the check on ambition and hubris that a superpower rival provided, the U.S.
was free to run amok and do whatever it liked without regard for the consequences. That
triumphalism sowed the seeds for many of the more significant post-Cold War failures that we
have witnessed since then. Even today, that same overconfidence encourages U.S. policymakers to
flirt with the idea of engaging in another Cold War-style rivalry with a more formidable state
in China.
George Kennan presciently warned
against the triumphalism that he saw around him as early as 1992. At that time, he was
responding directly to the claims from Republicans that Reagan and his policies had "won" the
Cold War:
The suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence decisively the
course of a tremendous domestic-political upheaval in another great country on another side
of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish. No great country has that sort of influence
on the internal developments of any other one.
Kennan went on to say that the militarization of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War was
a boon to Soviet hard-liners and in that way helped prolong it:
The extreme militarization of American discussion and policy, as promoted by hard-line
circles over the ensuing 25 years, consistently strengthened comparable hard-liners in the
Soviet Union.
The more America's political leaders were seen in Moscow as committed to an ultimate
military rather than political resolution of Soviet-American tensions, the greater was the
tendency in Moscow to tighten the controls by both party and police, and the greater the
braking effect on all liberalizing tendencies in the regime. Thus the general effect of cold
war extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union
at the end of the 1980's.
Whenever hawks talk about "winning" the Cold War, they invariably mean that it was the
militarized policies they favored that carried the day, but Kennan reminded us that this was
not so. In fact, a militarized foreign policy perpetuated the struggle by providing Soviet
hard-liners with a plausible foreign threat that they could use to justify their own policies
and to clamp down on internal dissent. We have seen the same thing repeated several times in
the last thirty years on a smaller scale with other governments. The most aggressive and
confrontational policies unwittingly aid authoritarian regimes by giving them an external enemy
that they can use to deflect attention from their own failings and as a pretext for the
consolidation of power at home.
Kennan was already telling us shortly after the Cold War ended that no one had "won" it:
Nobody -- no country, no party, no person -- "won" the cold war. It was a long and costly
political rivalry, fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions
and strength of the other party [bold mine-DL]. It greatly overstrained the economic
resources of both countries, leaving both, by the end of the 1980's, confronted with heavy
financial, social and, in the case of the Russians, political problems that neither had
anticipated and for which neither was fully prepared.
We can all be grateful that the Cold War ended, but we shouldn't delude ourselves with talk
of victory. Not only is it inaccurate, but it encourages the worst kinds of overreach and
arrogance that has led to several serious foreign policy failures in the decades that have
followed. Kennan warned us almost thirty years ago not to go down this path of triumphalism,
and as so often happened Americans ignored Kennan's wisdom.
Kennan concluded with the same idea that Bacevich stated at the end of his op-ed:
That the conflict should now be formally ended is a fit occasion for satisfaction but also
for sober re-examination of the part we took in its origin and long continuation. It is not a
fit occasion for pretending that the end of it was a great triumph for anyone, and
particularly not one for which any American political party could properly claim principal
credit.
American policymakers are not known for sober re-examination and acknowledgment of error,
but these are exactly the things that are needed if we are to stop making the same blunders and
learning the wrong lessons from the past. Kennan and Bacevich's advice is just as timely and
important today as it was twenty-seven years ago. Perhaps this time we should pay attention and
listen to it.
who said
this today in an official gov't press release?
"Today, Russia – led by a former KGB officer stationed in Dresden ‒ invades
its neighbors and slays political opponents. It suppresses the independence of the Orthodox
Church in Ukraine. Russian authorities, even as we speak, use police raids and torture
against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians who are working in opposition to Russian aggression. In
Chechnya, anyone considered "undesirable" by the authorities simply disappears.
In China – in China, the Chinese Communist Party is shaping a new vision of
authoritarianism, one that the world has not seen for an awfully long time. The Chinese
Communist Party uses tactics and methods to suppress its own people that would be
horrifyingly familiar to former East Germans. The People's Liberation Army encroaches on the
sovereignty of its Chinese neighbors, and the Chinese Communist Party denies travel
privileges to critics – even German lawmakers – who condemn its abysmal human
rights record. The CCP harasses the families of Chinese Muslims in Xinjiang, who simply
sought refuge abroad. We – all of us, everyone in this room – has a duty. We must
recognize that free nations are in a competition of values with those unfree nations."
"... If Flynn actually had lied to Strzok and Pientka that fact would have been reflected in the notes and the original 302. But that did not happen. A normal routine would be to write up the 302 and put it into final within five days. That did not happen. The original 302 still has not been produced. However, Ms. Powell has presented exhibits showing that there were other versions of the 302 generated and that substantive, unsupportable changes were made. The "final" 302 essentially made the case that Flynn lied. ..."
"... But Sidney Powell has produced documentary evidence showing that Strzok stated he did not believe that Flynn lied. And there was more FBI misconduct. General Flynn, for example, was not advised of the need to have a lawyer present nor was he shown the transcript of the call that was illegally recorded by the NSA. At no point was he given a chance to correct the record. It was a total setup and designed to paint Flynn as a liar and a collaborator with the Russians. This is malevolently diabolical conduct by law enforcement officers. ..."
There is no good news in this for the government's case. At a minimum it exposes the FBI as
incompetent clowns. At worse, it may be evidence of a deliberate effort to deceive the defense
and the judge. It has been exposed because of the insistent demands of the principled Sidney
Powell, a relentless Honey Badger. That woman will not quit in demanding that General Flynn be
treated fairly. She knows right from wrong. Cannot say the same for the FBI. The Bureau is a
disgrace.
Now that we know that the FBI mislabeled the notes taken by the FBI agents during their
interview of General Flynn, it would appear the entire case is in jeopardy. The foundation of
the charge that Flynn lied about his conversation with the Russian Ambassador is predicated on
the notes the FBI agents took and then turned into a 302 report. I asked one of my retired FBI
buddies (he served as a Special Agent in Charge of a large US city) if the agents were required
to date and sign their notes. He replied: No, we did not sign and date notes. They were placed
in a 1-A (evidence) Envelope which had our name and the date collected along with the file
number and, I believe, the case title. The 1-As were kept as part of the original case file.
They were not entered into evidence like other things we collected.
Those notes should have been placed in an "evidence" envelope with the appropriate name and
date on the envelope. How could so-called professionals screw up something this basic?
There was something more nefarious afoot. Let's put this into the broader context. If
Flynn actually had lied to Strzok and Pientka that fact would have been reflected in the notes
and the original 302. But that did not happen. A normal routine would be to write up the 302
and put it into final within five days. That did not happen. The original 302 still has not
been produced. However, Ms. Powell has presented exhibits showing that there were other
versions of the 302 generated and that substantive, unsupportable changes were made. The
"final" 302 essentially made the case that Flynn lied.
But Sidney Powell has produced documentary evidence showing that Strzok stated he did
not believe that Flynn lied. And there was more FBI misconduct. General Flynn, for example, was
not advised of the need to have a lawyer present nor was he shown the transcript of the call
that was illegally recorded by the NSA. At no point was he given a chance to correct the
record. It was a total setup and designed to paint Flynn as a liar and a collaborator with the
Russians. This is malevolently diabolical conduct by law enforcement officers.
Honey Badger Powell's terrific lawyering and insistence on getting her hands on the evidence
the US Government is withholding has now backed the Mueller team into a corner. Sidney Powell
has exposed staggering misconduct and malfeasance. Michael Flynn will be exonerated. The only
real question is whether or not the prosecutors will be held in contempt and tried.
Why doesn't the FBI, just record an interview? It's not that video cameras and tape
recorders are a new invention. Is the objective to manipulate using written interpretations
of conversations?
I'm worried there won't be any popcorn left by the time we get to the end of this sorry saga.
It would be nice to think that success by Sidney Powell might be the start of the finale in
this duplicitous story but I doubt it. The world is upside down and to many this is now a
matter of belief not evidence, something that has been largely caused be an entirely partisan
mainstream media (interested only in improving its revenue stream) and what can only be
described as a totally gullible section of the voting public.
One thing, Flynn has one hell of a lawsuit against his prior lawyers - a well known swamp law
firm. Egregious malpractice if not outright conspiring with the prosecutors.
FBI interviews are not recorded because if they were, then the interview subject could not be
falsely charged with the felony of lying to a federal investigator.
I need to write about the long history of the FBI honoring J. Edgar Hoover's policy, even
countering former Director Louis Freeh, after a meeting in mid 1990's with a federal judge
who had same suggestion, ORDERED the FBI to begin tape recording confessions and even after
many states like Minnesota, began to find their own constitutions required tape-recording (at
least of custodial confessions). After Freeh ordered the FBI to begin tape-recording, a
number of SACs argued the advantages for prosecutorial purposes of sticking with the old
policy of allowing Agents to write up, from memory and notes, what subjects and witnesses
said. The SACs made the point that juries would always tend to believe agents over the word
of defendants. So Freeh backed down. Flynn's attorney ought to request these memos
documenting how FBI policy was deliberately kept antiquated because it was advantageous.
Perhaps Larry Johnson knows -- Does Michael Flynn have some form of redress agains the
government, some established protocol for compensation for the misery and expense he's been
put through? Or are lawsuits against former lawyers his only option to try to recoup legal
expenses?
Strozk's caree/life is over. An interesting meditation: is he an evil man, or did he get
caught up in something larger than he could handle? (He thought he had what it took to swim
with the sharks, but he was just a barnacle. Or steelhead trout.)
The "unidentified" supposed whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, is young - early 30s. Age of
consent, for sure, but very young, the "age of youthful ambition," a different category from
Strozk, the age of damn well should have known better. I would judge Eric -- whom I suspect
was at very least put up to carrying out dirty deeds for Biden and careerism -- less harshly
than Strozk.
How did Sidney Powell become involved in this long, on-going case? She can't ethically
"solicit" the business, but someone must have put Flynn in touch with her -- at what point.
What made Flynn seek legal advice elsewhere.
Flynn seemed so passive about facing these drummed up charges earlier in the case - what
exactly was he trying to protect his son about that allegedly caused this legal passivity
about his own case.
Love watching this unfold and the lessons in " big government" that come with it. But
Flynn having to live out a modern day Greek tragedy is a very high price to pay for our
civics lesson.
Asked and answered: Powell tussled dramatically in the past with Andrew Weissman over his
role in the government's prosecution of Enron steam roller cases. She finally got court
vindication for her clients 9 years later.
Why does Andrew Weissman's name keep popping up just about everywhere now, when one is
looking in pari delitci (including our now famous Pierre Delecto)?
From what I have read, I gather that the FBI in the Mueller / Comey era has made extensive
use of "perjury traps". They then threaten charges to get someone to "flip" on someone
bigger, in this case Trump. Flynn wouldn't flip even when they threatened to go after Flynn's
son. So they decided to "F" him, as stated by Andrew McCabe.
The FBI has been thoroughly disgraced, and Wray is incapable of cleaning it up. He just
wants to keep the dirt under the rug. It is too late for that, it is all coming out. US
citizens deserve to know how dirty our FBI and CIA are - they are criminal organizations.
Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and
Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins. Could it be my Russian paranoia. Nah, I am being
unreasonable--those people never had a bad feeling towards Trump's attempts to boost
Russian-American relations with Michael Flynn spearheading this effort. Jokes aside, however,
I can only imagine how SVR and GRU are enjoying the spectacle. I can only imagine how many
"free" promotions and awards can be attach to this thing as a free ride.
"... "Page didn't recall whether she took part in editing the FD-302," the filing stated. Included was a discussion between Lisa Page and her paramour Peter Strzok talking about editing Flynn's 302 report. Strzok to Page: "I made your edits" Also discussion of misleading leadership re: picking up 302. Upon seeing her texts, Page "believes she must have seen it at some point " ..."
Another shoe is about to drop. Gen. Flynn was entrapped by the Obama Bin Biden clan.
General Flynn Attorney Sidney Powell: "We Will Seek to Move to Dismiss for Egregious
Government Conduct"
Attorney Sidney Powell joined Lou Dobbs on Tuesday night to discuss the latest updates on
US Government's court case against General Michael Flynn.
The Justice Department on Friday responded to Flynn's lawyer Sidney Powell's motion to
compel production of Brady Material and to hold prosecutors in contempt.
Sidney Powell filed a motion a couple
weeks ago revealing that General Flynn was indeed set up by the FBI with an ambush, damaging
leaks and altered 302 reports.
Powell revealed that former FBI lawyer Lisa Page EDITED General Mike Flynn's 302 report,
then lied to the DOJ about the edits.
A 302 summary report consists of contemporaneous notes taken by an FBI agent when
interviewing a subject.
"Lisa Page, Special Counsel to Deputy Director McCabe, resigned; she edited Mr. Flynn's
302 and was part of a small, high-level group that strategically planned his ambush." the
filing said.
"Page didn't recall whether she took part in editing the FD-302," the filing stated.
Included was a discussion between Lisa Page and her paramour Peter Strzok talking about
editing Flynn's 302 report. Strzok to Page: "I made your edits" Also discussion of misleading
leadership re: picking up 302. Upon seeing her texts, Page "believes she must have seen it at
some point "
"... "Manufacturing Consent," Taibbi writes, "explains that the debate you're watching is choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear it" (p. 11). ..."
"... Americans were held captive by the boob tube affords us not only a useful historical image but also suggests the possibility of their having been able to view the television as an antagonist, and therefore of their having been able, at least some of them, to rebel against its dictates. Three decades later, on the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and portable tablets, the workings of which are so precisely intertwined with even the most intimate minute-to-minute aspects of our lives that our relationship to them could hardly ever become antagonistic. ..."
"... The massive political revolution was, going all the way back to 1989, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and then of the Soviet Union itself -- and thus of the usefulness of anti-communism as a kind of coercive secular religion (pp. 14-15). ..."
"... our corporate media have devised -- at least for the time being -- highly-profitable marketing processes that manufacture fake dissent in order to smother real dissent (p. 21). ..."
"... And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid. ..."
"... For Maddow, he notes, is "a depressingly exact mirror of Hannity . The two characters do exactly the same work. They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the same" (pp. 259-260). ..."
Matt Taibbi's Hate Inc . is the most insightful and revelatory book about American
politics to appear since the publication of Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal almost four
full years ago, near the beginning of the last presidential election cycle.
While Frank's topic was the abysmal failure of the Democratic Party to be democratic and
Taibbi's is the abysmal failure of our mainstream news corporations to report news, the
prominent villains in both books are drawn from the same, or at least overlapping, elite social
circles: from, that is, our virulently anti-populist liberal class, from our
intellectually mediocre creative class, from our bubble-dwelling thinking class.
In fact, I would strongly recommend that the reader spend some time with Frank's What's the
Matter with Kansas? (2004) and Listen, Liberal! (2016) as he or she takes up
Taibbi's book.
And to really do the book the justice it deserves, I would even more vehemently recommend
that the reader immerse him- or herself in Taibbi's favorite book and vade-mecum ,
Manufacturing Consent (which I found to be a grueling experience: a relentless
cataloging of the official lies that hide the brutality of American foreign policy) and, in
order to properly appreciate the brilliance of Taibbi's chapter 7, "How the Media Stole from
Pro Wrestling," visit some locale in Flyover Country and see some pro wrestling in person
(which I found to be unexpectedly uplifting -- more on this soon enough).
Taibbi tells us that he had originally intended for Hate, Inc . to be an updating of
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (1988), which he first read
thirty years ago, when he was nineteen. "It blew my mind," Taibbi writes. "[It] taught me that
some level of deception was baked into almost everything I'd ever been taught about modern
American life .
Once the authors in the first chapter laid out their famed propaganda model [italics
mine], they cut through the deceptions of the American state like a buzz saw" (p. 10). For what
seemed to be vigorous democratic debate, Taibbi realized, was instead a soul-crushing
simulation of debate. The choices voters were given were distinctions without valid
differences, and just as hyped, just as trivial, as the choices between a Whopper and a Big
Mac, between Froot Loops and Frosted Mini-Wheats, between Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, between
Marlboro Lites and Camel Filters. It was all profit-making poisonous junk.
"Manufacturing Consent," Taibbi writes, "explains that the debate you're watching is
choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear
it" (p. 11). And there's an indisputable logic at work here, because the reality of
hideous American war crimes is and always has been, from the point of view of the big media
corporations, a "narrative-ruining" buzz-kill. "The uglier truth [brought to light in
Manufacturing Consent ], that we committed genocide of a fairly massive scale across
Indochina -- ultimately killing at least a million innocent civilians by air in three countries
-- is pre-excluded from the history of the period" (p. 13).
So what has changed in the last thirty years? A lot! As a starting point let's consider the
very useful metaphor found in the title of another great media book of 1988: Mark Crispin
Miller's Boxed In: The Culture of TV . To say that Americans were held captive by
the boob tube affords us not only a useful historical image but also suggests the possibility
of their having been able to view the television as an antagonist, and therefore of their
having been able, at least some of them, to rebel against its dictates. Three decades later, on
the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and portable tablets, the workings
of which are so precisely intertwined with even the most intimate minute-to-minute aspects of
our lives that our relationship to them could hardly ever become antagonistic.
Taibbi summarizes the history of these three decades in terms of three "massive revolutions"
in the media plus one actual massive political revolution, all of which, we should note, he
discussed with his hero Chomsky (who is now ninety! -- Edward Herman passed away in 2017) even
as he wrote his book. And so: the media revolutions which Taibbi describes were, first, the
coming of FoxNews along with Rush Limbaugh-style talk radio; second, the coming of CNN, i.e.,
the Cable News Network, along with twenty-four hour infinite-loop news cycles; third, the
coming of the Internet along with the mighty social media giants Facebook and Twitter.
The massive political revolution was, going all the way back to 1989, the collapse of
the Berlin Wall, and then of the Soviet Union itself -- and thus of the usefulness of
anti-communism as a kind of coercive secular religion (pp. 14-15).
For all that, however, the most salient difference between the news media of 1989 and the
news media of 2019 is the disappearance of the single type of calm and decorous and slightly
boring cis-het white anchorman (who somehow successfully appealed to a nationwide audience) and
his replacement by a seemingly wide variety of demographically-engineered news personæ
who all rage and scream combatively in each other's direction. "In the old days," Taibbi
writes, "the news was a mix of this toothless trivia and cheery dispatches from the frontlines
of Pax Americana . The news [was] once designed to be consumed by the whole house . But once we
started to be organized into demographic silos [italics mine], the networks found
another way to seduce these audiences: they sold intramural conflict" (p. 18).
And in this new media environment of constant conflict, how, Taibbi wondered, could public
consent , which would seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from conflict,
still be manufactured ?? "That wasn't easy for me to see in my first decades in the
business," Taibbi writes. "For a long time, I thought it was a flaw in the Chomsky/Herman
model" (p. 19).
But what Taibbi was at length able to understand, and what he is now able to describe for us
with both wit and controlled outrage, is that our corporate media have devised -- at least
for the time being -- highly-profitable marketing processes that manufacture fake dissent in
order to smother real dissent (p. 21).
And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam
job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid.
Or pretty much so. Taibbi is more historically precise. Because of the tweaking of the
Herman/Chomsky propaganda model necessitated by the disappearance of the USSR in 1991 ("The
Russians escaped while we weren't watching them, / As Russians do ," Jackson Browne presciently
prophesied on MTV way back in 1983), one might now want to speak of a Propaganda Model 2.0.
For, as Taibbi notes, " the biggest change to Chomsky's model is the discovery of a far
superior 'common enemy' in modern media: each other. So long as we remain a bitterly-divided
two-party state, we'll never want for TV villains" (pp. 207-208).
To rub his great insight right into our uncomprehending faces, Taibbi has almost
sadistically chosen to have dark, shadowy images of a yelling Sean Hannity (in lurid FoxNews
Red!) and a screaming Rachel Maddow (in glaring MSNBC Blue!) juxtaposed on the cover of his
book. For Maddow, he notes, is "a depressingly exact mirror of Hannity . The two characters
do exactly the same work. They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And
though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the
same" (pp. 259-260).
And that effect is hate. Impotent hate. For while Rachel's fan demographic is all wrapped up
in hating Far-Right Fascists Like Sean, and while Sean's is all wrapped up in despising Libtard
Lunatics Like Rachel, the bipartisan consensus in Washington for ever-increasing military
budgets, for everlasting wars, for ever-expanding surveillance, for ever-growing bailouts of
and tax breaks for and and handouts to the most powerful corporations goes forever
unchallenged.
Oh my. And it only gets worse and worse, because the media, in order to make sure that their
various siloed demographics stay superglued to their Internet devices, must keep
ratcheting up levels of hate: the Fascists Like Sean and the Libtards Like Rachel must be
continually presented as more and more deranged, and ultimately as demonic. "There is us and
them," Taibbi writes, "and they are Hitler" (p. 64). A vile reductio ad absurdum has
come into play: "If all Trump supporters are Hitler, and all liberals are also Hitler," Taibbi
writes, " [t]he America vs. America show is now Hitler vs. Hitler! Think of the
ratings! " The reader begins to grasp Taibbi's argument that our mainstream corporate media are
as bad as -- are worse than -- pro wrestling. It's an ineluctable downward spiral.
Taibbi continues: "The problem is, there's no natural floor to this behavior. Just as cable
TV will eventually become seven hundred separate twenty-four-hour porn channels, news and
commentary will eventually escalate to boxing-style, expletive-laden, pre-fight tirades, and
the open incitement to violence [italics mine]. If the other side is literally Hitler,
[w]hat began as America vs. America will eventually move to Traitor vs. Traitor ,
and the show does not work if those contestants are not eventually offended to the point of
wanting to kill one another" (pp. 65-69).
As I read this book, I often wondered about how difficult it was emotionally for
Taibbi to write it. I'm just really glad to see that the guy didn't commit suicide along the
way. He does describe the "self-loathing" he experienced as he realized his own complicity in
the marketing processes which he exposes (p. 2). He also apologizes to the reader for his not
being able to follow through on his original aim of writing a continuation of Herman and
Chomsky's classic: "[W]hen I sat down to write what I'd hoped would be something with the
intellectual gravitas of Manufacturing Consent ," Taibbi confesses, "I found decades of
more mundane frustrations pouring out onto the page, obliterating a clinical examination" (p.
2).
I, however, am profoundly grateful to Taibbi for all of his brilliantly observed anecdotes.
The subject matter is nauseating enough even in Taibbi's sparkling and darkly tragicomic prose.
A more academic treatment of the subject would likely be too depressing to read. So let me
conclude with an anecdote of my own -- and an oddly uplifting one at that -- about reading
Taibbi's chapter 7, "How the News Media Stole from Pro Wrestling."
On the same day I read this chapter I saw that, on the bulletin board in my gym, a poster
had appeared, as if by magic, promoting an upcoming Primal Conflict (!) professional
wrestling event. I studied the photos of the wrestlers on the poster carefully, and, as an
astute reader of Taibbi, I prided myself on being able to identify which of them seemed be
playing the roles of heels , and which of them the roles of babyfaces .
For Taibbi explains that one of the fundamental dynamics of wrestling involves the invention
of crowd-pleasing narratives out of the many permutations and combinations of pitting
heels against faces . Donald Trump, a natural heel , brings the goofy
dynamics of pro wrestling to American politics with real-life professional expertise. (Taibbi
points out that in 2007 Trump actually performed before a huge cheering crowd in a
Wrestlemania event billed as the "battle of the billionaires." Watch it on YouTube!
https://youtu.be/5NsrwH9I9vE --
unbelievable!!)
The mainstream corporate media, on the other hand, their eyes fixed on ever bigger and
bigger profits, have drifted into the metaphorical pro wrestling ring in ignorance, and so,
when they face off against Trump, they often end up in the role of inept prudish
pearl-clutching faces .
Taibbi condemns the mainstream media's failure to understand such a massively popular form
of American entertainment as "malpractice" (p. 125), so I felt more than obligated to buy a
ticket and see the advertised event in person. To properly educate myself, that is.
I have stopped watching broadcast "news" other than occasional sessions of NPR in the car.
I get most of my news from sources such as this and from overseas sources (The Guardian,
Reuters, etc.). I used to subscribe to newspapers but have given them up in disgust, even
though I was looking forward to leisurely enjoying a morning paper after I retired.
I was brought up in the positive 1950's and, boy, did this turn out poorly.
Matt Taibbi is an American treasure, and I love his writing very much, but we also need to
ask, Why hasn't another Chomsky (or another Hudson), an analyst with a truly deep and
wide-ranging, synthetic mind, appeared on the left to take apart our contemporary media and
show us its inner workings? Have all the truly great minds gone to work for Wall Street? I
don't have an answer, but to me the pro wrestling metaphor, while intriguing, misses
something about the Fourth Estate in America, if it indeed still exists. And that is, except
for radio, there is a distinct imbalance between the two sides of the MSM lineup. On the
corporate liberal side of the national MSM team you have five wrestlers, but on the
conservative/reactionary side you have only the Fox entry. Because of this imbalance, the
corruption, laziness, self-indulgence, and generally declining interest in journalistic
standards seems greater among the corporate liberal media team, including the NYT and WaPo,
than the Fox team.
I'm not a fan of either Maddow (in her current incarnation) or Hannity, but Hannity,
perhaps because he thinks he's like David, often hustles to refute the discourse of the
corporate liberal Goliath team. Hannity obviously does more research on some topics than
Maddow, and, perhaps because he began in radio, he puts more emphasis on semi-rationally
structured rants than Maddow, who depends more on primal emotion, body language, and
Hollywood-esque fear-inducing atmospherics.
I'd wager that in a single five-minute segment there will often be twice as many rational
distinctions made in a Hannity rant than in a Maddow performance. In addition, for the last
three years Hannity has simply been demonstrably right about the fake Russiagate propaganda
blitz while Maddow has been as demonstrably wrong from the very beginning as propaganda
industry trend-setter Adam Schiff. So for at least these last three years, the Maddow-Hannity
primal match has been a somewhat misleading metaphor. The Blob and the security state have
been decisively supporting (and directing?) the corporate liberal global interventionist
media, at least regarding Russia and the permanent war establishment, and because the
imbalance between the interventionist and the non-interventionist MSM, Russia and Ukraine are
being used as a wedge to steadily break down the firewalls between the Dem party, the intel
community, and the interventionist MSM. If we had real public debates with both sides at
approximately equal strength as we did during the Vietnam War, then even pro wrestling-type
matches would be superior to what we have now, which is truthy truth and thoughtsy thought
coming to us from the military industrial complex and monopolistic holding companies. If
fascism is defined as the fusion of the state and corporations, then the greatest threat of
fascism in America may well be coming from the apparent gradual fusion of the corporate
liberal MSM, the Dem party elite, and the intel community. Instead of an MSM wrestling match,
we may soon be faced with a Japanese-style 'hitori-zumo' match in which a sumo wrestler
wrestles with only himself. Once these sumo wrestlers were believed to be wrestling with
invisible spirits, but those days are gone . http://kikuko-nagoya.com/html/hitori-zumo.htm
Today's Noam Chomksy? Chomsky was part of the machine who broke ranks with it. His MIT
research was generously funded by the Military Industrial Complex. Thankfully, enough of his
latent humanity and Trotskyite upbringing shone through so he exposed what he was part of. So
I guess today that's Chris Hedges, though he's a preacher at heart and not a semiotician.
> In addition, for the last three years Hannity has simply been demonstrably right
about the fake Russiagate propaganda blitz while Maddow has been as demonstrably wrong
Eh. Read whats-his-name's (Frankfurter?) book On Bullshit . You are giving
Hannity credit for something he doesn't really care about.
I don't believe the media environment as a whole leans corporate Dem/neoliberal.
T.V. maybe, but radio is much more right wing than left (yes there is NPR and Pacifica,
the latter with probably only a scattering of listerners but ) and it's still out there and a
big influence, radio hasn't gone away. So doesn't the right wing tilt of radio kind of
balance out television? (not necessarily in a good way but). And then there is the internet
and I have no idea what the overall lean of that is (I mean I prefer left wing sites, but
that's purely my own bubble and actually there are much fewer left analysis out there than
I'd like)
The whole review is good, but this extract should be quoted extensively:
While Frank's topic was the abysmal failure of the Democratic Party to be democratic and
Taibbi's is the abysmal failure of our mainstream news corporations to report news, the
prominent villains in both books are drawn from the same, or at least overlapping, elite
social circles: from, that is, our virulently anti-populist liberal class, from our
intellectually mediocre creative class, from our bubble-dwelling thinking class.
In short, stagnation and self-dealing at the top. What could possibly go wrong?
Are you serious? Maddow called Trump a traitor and accused him of betrayal in Russiagate,
and was caught out when that fell apart. This was pointed out all over the MSM .
Three decades later, on the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and
portable tablets
and then goes on to spend most of the article talking about television. I'd say television
is still the main propaganda instrument even if many webheads like yours truly ignore it
(I've never seen Hannity's show or Maddow's–just hear the rumors). Arguably even
newspapers like the NYT have been dumbed down because the reporters long to be on TV and join
the shouting. And it's surely no coincidence that our president himself is a TV (and WWE)
star. Mass media have always been feeders of hysteria but television gave them faces and
voices. Watching TV is also a far more passive experience than surfing the web. They are
selling us "narratives," bedtime stories, and we like sleepy children merely listen.
This rave review has inspired me to add this to my to-read non-fiction queue. Currently
reading William Dalrymple's The Anarchy, on the rise of the East India Company. Next up: Matt
Stoller's Goliath. And then I'll get to Taibbi. Probably worth digging up my original copy of
Manufacturing Consent as well, which I read many moons ago; time for a re-read.
May I suggest Stephen Cohen's "War with Russia?" if it's not already on your list? In
focusing on the danger emerging from the new cold war, seeded by the Democrats, propagated by
corporate media (which he thinks is more dangerous than the first), Cohen clarifies the
importance of diplomacy especially with one's nuclear rivals.
Us rubes knew decades ago about pro wrestling. There was a regional circuit and the hero
in one town would become the villain in another town. The ones to be surprised were like John
Stossel, who got a perforated eardrum from a slap upside the head for his efforts at
in-your-face journalism with a wrestler who just wouldn't play along with his grandstanding.
Somewhere, kids cheered and life went on.
Ah, Ancient Athens, here we come – running back to repeat your mistakes! Our MSM
media has decided that when we are not at our neighbor's throats, we should be at each
other's throats!
I was watching old clips of the 'Fred Friendly Seminars' on YouTube. IMHO any channel that
produced a format such as this would be a ratings bonanza. Imagine a round table with various
media figures (corporate) left, (corporate) right, and independent being refereed by a
host-moderator discussing topics in 'Hate, Inc.'. In wrestling it's called a Battle Royale.
The Fourth Estate in a cage match!
And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam
job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid.
This is important, if people don't want to be naive about what democracy buys. Democracy
in the end is a ritual system to determine which members of an elite would win a war without
actually having to hold the war. Like how court functions to replace personal revenge by
determining (often) who would win in a fight if there were one, and the feudal system
replaced the genocidal wars of the axial age with the gentler warfare of the middle ages
which were often ritual wars of the elite that avoided the full risk of the earlier wars.
That, I think, is important -- under a democracy, the winner should be normally the winner
of the avoided violent conflict to be sustainable. Thus, it's enough to get most people to
consent to the solution, using the traditional meaning of consent being "won't put up a fight
to avoid it". If the choices on the table are reduced enough, you can get by with most people
simply dropping out of the questions.
Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
It shouldn't be a surprise that we've moved to "faking dissent" -- it's the natural
evolution of a system where a lot of the effective power is in the hands of tech, and not
just as in the early 20th century, how many workers you have and how many soldiers you can
raise.
If you don't like it, change the technology we use to fight one another. We went from
tribes to lords when we switch from sticks to advanced forged weapons, and we went from
feudalism to democracy when we had factories dropping guns that any 15 year old could use
(oversimplifying a bit). Now that the stuff requires expertise, you'd expect a corresponding
shift in how we ritualize our conflict avoidance, and thus the organization of how we control
communication and how we organize our rituals of power.
Aka, it's the scientists and the engineers who end up determining how everything is
organized, and people never seem to bother with that argument, which is especially surprising
that even hard-core Marxists waste their time on short-term politics rather than the tech
we're building.
I'd be curious whether Taibbi thought about the issue of the nature of the technology and
whether there are technological options on the horizon which drive the conflict in other
directions. If we had only kept the laws on copyright and patent weaker, so that the
implementation of communicative infrastructure would have stayed decentralized
Tabby's "manufacturing fake consent" was really the whole punchline – the joke's on
us. Hunter S. Thompson, another of Taibbi's heroes, is, along with Chomsky, speaking to us
through MT. Our media is distracting us from social coherence. Another thing it is doing
(just my opinion) is it is overwhelming us to the point of disgust. Nobody likes it. And we
protect ourselves by tuning it out. Turning it off. Once the screaming lunatics marginalize
themselves by making the whole narrative hysterical, we just act like it's another family
fight and we're gonna go do something else. When everyone is screaming, no one is
screaming.
I have tried to read Hate Inc. and Taibbi's Griftopia but one of my main issues with
Taibbi's writing is his lack of notes, references, or bibliography, etc. in his books. In
skimming Hate Inc. it seems like a book I would enjoy reading, however my personal value
system is that any book without footnotes, endnotes, citations, or at minimum a bibliography
is just an opinion or a story. At least Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal has a section for End
Notes/References at the end of the book. Again just my personal values.
I am from Greater Boston, far, far from flyover country (which I imagine begins in Yonkers
NY), but I sure grew up with pro wrestling as part of the schoolyard discourse. I certainly
knew it was as much of a family affair as Disney on Ice and have trouble believing he thought
otherwise though I will not impugn his honesty. I am very grateful to the author for taking
the time to write this, but is it possible for a male who grew up in the US to be as deeply
embedded in the MSNBC demo as he claims to be?
Seriously, how is it possible for a male raised in the US to not at least have some
working familiarity with pro wrestling? My family along with my community was very close to
the national median income–do higher income boys really not learn about WWF and
WWE?
Seriously, rich kids, what was childhood like? I know you had music lessons and sports
camps, what else? Was it really that different?
Sorry, my blue collar, lifetime union member brother says your view is horseshit. All the
knows about WWE and WWF is that they are big-budget fakery and that's why they are of no
interest.
aye. in my blue to white collar( and back to blue to no collar) upbringing, wrestling was
never a thing. it was for the morons who couldn't read. seen as patently absurd by just about
everyone i knew. and this in klanridden east texas exurbia
wife's mexican extended familia oth luche libre is a big thing that all and sundry talked
about at thanksgiving. less so these days possibly due to the hyperindiviualisation of media
intake mentioned
(and,btw, in my little world , horseshit is a good thing)
Even allowing for my lefty-liberal bias, I do not see how it is possible to equate Fox
Noise and MSNBC, or Hannity and Maddow, as "both-sides" extremists. Fox violates basic
professional canons of fairness and equity on a daily basis. MSNBC occasionally does, but is
quick to correct errors of fact. Hannity is a thuggish outer-borough New York schmuck without
much education or knowledge of the world. Maddow is an Oxford Ph.D. and Rhodes Scholar. It is
one of the evil successes of the right-wing news cauldron to have successfully equated these
two figures and organizations.
Huh? MSNBC regularly makes errors of omission and commission with respect to Sanders. They
are still pushing the Russiagate narrative. That's a massive, two-year, virtually all the
time error they have refused to recant.
The blind spots of people on the soi-disant left are truly astonishing.
'Hannity is a thuggish outer-borough New York schmuck without much education or knowledge
of the world. Maddow is an Oxford Ph.D. and Rhodes Scholar '
oh, well, then – end of conversation! i mean, god knows, it'd be a cold day in hell
before a rhodes scholar, or even someone married to one, would ever lead us astray down the
rosy neoliberal path to hell, while, at the same time, under the spell of trump derangement
syndrome, actually attempt to revive the mccarthy era, eh?
Actual drugs are being used to hinder debate as well as emotional drugs like hate.
They can't trust agency to be removed by words and images alone – the stakes are too
high.
Now all of you go take a feel good pill and stop complaining!
I've been impressed with Taibbi's work, what I've read of it, but ironically this very
article contains a quote from him which exemplifies the problem: his casual assertion that
the US committed "genocide" in Indochina. Even the most fervent critics of US policy didn't
say this at the time, for the very good reason that there was no evidence that the US tried
to destroy a racial, religious, ethnic or nationalist group (the full definition is a lot
more complex and demanding than that). He clearly means that the US was responsible for lots
of deaths, which is incontestable. But the process of endless escalation of rhetoric, which
this book seems to be partly about, means that everything now has to be described in the most
extreme, absurd or apocalyptic tones, and at the top of your voice, otherwise nobody takes
any notice. So any self-respecting war now has to be qualified as "genocide" or nobody will
take any notice.
Obama Bin Biden and the crooked clan need to get back in the game somehow so they can rip
off another 3 billion in US tax payer loans. What were they up to 44 Billion in fraudulent
loans to Ukraine?
Interesting how they want to Impeach Trump over Ukraine, don't you think?
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the
US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised
transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of
the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit
of a few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its
dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas,
sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low;
and the Ukrainians got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to
produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for heating and
cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma)
had very high profits and very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went
sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating;
and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering
prices, President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his
projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a
partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually
its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners
into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He
had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it
didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand
dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the
Ukrainian tax code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six
hours to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US
taxpayers' funds won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars,
according to different sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and
installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma,
but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep
his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself.
Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and
now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another
case, Firtash case.
The US openly occupies parts of Syria, boasts of taking it resources and supported the
attempts of the Kurds to set up their own little state, until the Turks blew a hissy fit. And
yet it has the gall to call out what Russia does in the Ukraine as a breach of international
law.
"... As for the rest of Ukraine, even though they lost something, they get something valuable in return: it's called neutral status between east and west. A subdued, federalized Ukraine led by Zelensky, in many ways, makes Ukraine "Finlandized." That is good for the Ukrainian people. It means they retain their independence, but peacefully accept that Russia controls their foreign policy. That position benefited Finland between 1945 and 1991. Finland is now a peaceful and prosperous country, and it is no longer living under influence of Russia or the Soviets. If "Finlandization" led to happiness for the Finns, it can do the same for Ukraine. ..."
"... Finland did not fight against Swedish language and peacefully uses it, while it is "legacy of Swedish occupation" and less than 10% of Finnish people can speak it. Ukrainian Nazis are deprived of wisdom, they are fighting with Russian language and own people. So, if you haven't brain, nothing will help you. ..."
"... after Maidan, Nuland directly stated that the United States spent 5 billion on "building democracy in Ukraine." The United States invested 5 billion in a coup, but is Poland to blame? why? if Poland had really done that, then western Ukraine would have become part of Poland immediately after the Maidan, but this did not happen. After the Maidan, Biden was photographed in a pride chair, but not the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland;) ..."
When Russia is led by truly capable leaders, it can beat any foreign power in war or geostrategic conflict. Today Russia is
led by a great man who is starting to look more and more like another Suvorov.
And everyone knows who Suvorov was.
Just read today's headlines concerning Syria. Russia ordered Turkey to stand down its offensive. Russian troops are now functioning
as peacekeepers in-between the Turkish and Syrian armies. The Kurds have signed allied themselves with Russia and Assad.
..while Americans of all stripes scratch their heads wondering what went wrong, and then check CNN and their FB feeds in a
hopeless bid to understand what's going down. Just.... hilarious....
What disturbs me the most is that Americans are being misled into believing that they "lost" something in Syria. In reality,
America "lost" nothing in Syria. That's because the US was never established in Syria to begin with. America has long been established
in Syria's neighbors, Israel, SA, Turkey, and to a lesser degree Iraq. But not Syria.
Basically, America got involved in Syria for aggressive, illegitimate, and unnecessary reasons. We were there to further the
over-ambitious geopolitical ambitions of our ME allies. That's why America launched a minor invasion of eastern Syria, and armed
and funded rebels, jihadis to try to violently overthrow Assad. And when that didn't work, the US POTUS justifiably pulled out
US troops and stopped supporting the rebels.
So, America didn't ever have anything to gain or to lose in Syria. Nothing at all.
Meanwhile, all the hawkish American newspapers -- which includes much of MSM -- are now complaining that Trump allowed Russia
to "take" Syria, and to "humiliate" and "drive out" America from that country. What hogwash! What propaganda and lies!
Russia has been in Syria for nearly 50 years. That means Russia's the chief ally of Syria, and as such, is a guarantor peace
and stability in the country. Also, Russia definitely has something to lose in Syria if Assad gets overthrown. So, in the end,
Russia wasn't trying to "take over Syria," as lying US media suggests. Russia was just protecting itself, protecting Assad, and
trying to impose peace on the region.
Check out Newsweek's totally dishonest story on this is subject. The article was published today. It's a shame so many
naive Americans believe these lies about America's alleged "role" in Syria.
Sir, we got involved in Syria because of Assad, who is a monster to his own people. If you're talking about Butinterests in
terms of money, no -- we don't have any. But in terms of principles, yes, we were justified in entering that area of the country.
And we made a difference. Or else the Russians wouldn't be rushing in to take the place we left. We were getting a lot out
of very little engagement.
Russia has never been a guarantee for peace and stability anywhere; it has always been a guarantee of more support for Russia.
Whenever necessary, instabillity was sown, and inconvenient parties, whether or not former allies, were abandoned.
Plus, there is the nagging issue of the Kurds having helped us in the fight against ISIS. Letting this out of the picture is
as dishonest as you try to make parts of the MSM be.
But hey -- have your own opinions. Write a book about them while you're at it.
Sir, we got involved in Syria because of Assad, who is a monster to his own people. If you're talking about Butinterests in
terms of money, no -- we don't have any. But in terms of principles, yes, we were justified in entering that area of the country.
sorry what???
In fact, Assad is the legitimate, democratically elected president of Syria. have you decided in the USA that you have the
right to decide who is bad and who is good?
The United States has worked hard to overthrow legitimate power in Syria. for 7 years of NATO's joint operation in Syria, ISIS
captured 70% of the territory of this country. Of course, with the active support of the United States, it supplied weapons to
everyone who was ready to fight against the Syrian army. but the "evil" Russia came and ruined everything. for 5 years of military
operations in Syria, ISIS were defeated and switched to guerrilla warfare. solved the problem between the Kurds, Turks and Syrians.
US plans have completely collapsed. or not?
Congress is currently making a decision to bring tanks into Syria to protect oil fields from terrorists. Really??? it looks
like American democracy is black and actually called oil! all these hundreds of thousands of murdered women and children in Syria
just so that the United States could continue to steal oil from Syria!
"the greatest power in the world" turns out to be an ordinary thief! do not you disgust?
Sir, we got involved in Syria because of Assad, who is a monster to his own people.
Define what you mean by "monster to his own people." And explain to me why 30% of Syrians -- a huge chunk of whole -- have
always been solidly behind Assad.
If you're talking about the Assad regime's barrel bombing, yes, that's monstrous. But Assad didn't start doing that until the
civil war was fulling raging. That war, mind you, didn't broaden and deepen until America stepped in to fund and arm Assad's enemies.
Had America had stayed out of Syria and allowed Assad to stamp out the initial protests and acts of rebellion, then there would
have been no civil war. Therefore, America's involved escalated Syria's civil disorder all the way up to the level of a full fledged
war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I really don't understand how American Triumphalists and messianic spreaders of American democracy can justify what they did
in Syria. Essentially, America consciously took a chance in Syria, choosing to support the rebels on the off chance that they
might topple Assad. America knew that the price of failure in this reckless gambit would be the deaths of hundreds of thousands
of Syrians.
Why did America do this? America's action in Syria were driven by the desire to turn the country into a strategic asset. America
chose to pursue this goal on behalf of its regional allies (all Syrian enemies), Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. That's
all. Never mind "principles." We're talking geopolitical ambitions here. Blind ambitions.
It's a mysterious to me as to why you blame the war on Russia. After all, Russia's been in Syria for nearly 50 years. During
that time, Syria was stable, and experienced no civil war. But as soon as America began meddling in Syria, war broke out. Russia
worked with Assad to try to stomp out that war. America worked with the rebels to expand it.
Ukraine power captured it's country in own trap. They can't stop civil war in Donbass because then they will need to explain
somehow why they killed Donbass people (Ukraine Nazis power hate Donbassians, but at the same time pretends to call them their
own citizens) for so many years. Admit truth means acknowledge own crimes. So, the only way they have is continuing lying about
"liberation" (means genociding) of Donbass.
But rest assured: Ukraine is beaten and the Ukrainians know it. They can feel it. That's why they elected Zelensky, who
may be a sensible guy.
Implementation of the peace plan in Donbass will turn the region into a virtually independent part of Ukraine. Russia will
be able to influence Ukrainian politics through its connections in Donbass. That means Russia will have gained exactly what it
fought for: veto power over Ukraine's attempts to join the EU and NATO.
As for the rest of Ukraine, even though they lost something, they get something valuable in return: it's called neutral
status between east and west. A subdued, federalized Ukraine led by Zelensky, in many ways, makes Ukraine "Finlandized." That
is good for the Ukrainian people. It means they retain their independence, but peacefully accept that Russia controls their foreign
policy. That position benefited Finland between 1945 and 1991. Finland is now a peaceful and prosperous country, and it is no
longer living under influence of Russia or the Soviets. If "Finlandization" led to happiness for the Finns, it can do the same
for Ukraine.
Finland did not fight against Swedish language and peacefully uses it, while it is "legacy of Swedish occupation" and less
than 10% of Finnish people can speak it. Ukrainian Nazis are deprived of wisdom, they are fighting with Russian language and own
people. So, if you haven't brain, nothing will help you.
But rest assured: Ukraine is beaten and the Ukrainians know it. They can feel it. That's why they elected Zelensky, who may
be a sensible guy.
your optimism is due to ignorance of the peculiarities of Ukrainian political life;) Let's start with a short introduction
to Ukrainian political life. Who is Zelensky? this is a representative of the oligarch Kolomoisky. exactly the same oligarch as
Parashenko has ruled Ukraine for the past 5 years. For 5 years, Parashenko has robbed banks and enterprises of other oligarchs
in Ukraine, now Kolomoisky will do the same through his representative Zelensky.
Now about the peace process in the Donbas ... The armed coup in 2014 was carried out by the forces of Ukrainian Nazis and over
the past 5 years, the Ukrainian Nazis have firmly established themselves in the Verkhovna Rada and, most importantly, in the army
and law enforcement agencies. these structures are controlled by Avakov, not Zelensky. Zelensky cannot withdraw troops, and even
more so "Ukrainian volunteers" from punitive battalions Aidar, Azov, etc. Zelensky does not control these formations and has no
leverage over them. all he can do is put forward an additional requirement of 7 days without shelling. Naturally, the shelling
is not embellished and no one withdraws the troops. Even if Zelensky really wanted to end the war, there simply isn't any opportunity
for this. all that he can do is populism and tell that he will return Crimea :))))
Mr Gvosdev sounds like one of those Eastern European svidomites . They combine this unwavering faith in the power of
Washington on top of a deep, irrational hostility to Russia.
How is "collapse of Russian economy" going to happen exactly? Judging by the casual manner in which Gvosdev talks about it,
I think he imagines president Biden flipping some switch in his cabinet, and the economy of vast country shutting down in an instant.
How does a Western economic war on Russia can help its proxies seize power? It didn't work like this in Iran or Venezuela,
it's even less likely to happen in Russia. If anything the opposite is likely to happen: pro-Western 5th column in Russia will
be eradicated.
You know that the Ukraine is doomed when your "optimistic scenario" requires Russia to drop dead essentially.
Russia's economy is functioning very close to autarky. That means Russia could survive expulsion from SWIFT.
As for for your reference to China, your point is anything but clear. China is forming a strategic alliance with Russia pointed
directly at the US. If you don't realize this, you haven't been reading the news. It would behoove you to know that China and
the US have long been drifting in the direction of a conflict for supremacy in Pan-Pacific affairs. The US has lots of weapons
systems set up in South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. Beijing is determined to make the US withdraw those military assets from China's
borders. China is also wary of the US's messianic impulse to spread democracy anywhere it can. China blames America for the Hong
Kong disturbances, which Beijing thinks of as America's latest attempt at a "color revolution."
Meanwhile, Russia poses no such threat to China. If anything, Russia makes an ideal junior ally for China in the latter's growing
tendency to constantly subvert the US as the world's superpower. So, I am confused as to what kind of threat you think China poses
to Russia?
Perhaps you believe that China wants to take Siberia from Russia. Do you really believe China has the ability to do so? If
that's what you're thinking, you are willfully blind to the fact that Russia remains a nuclear weapons superpower. If war broke
out between China and Russia (which is very unlikely), which country would do more damage to the other? Think about it: Russia
is a massive open land mass that is not densely populated, and it is full of nuclear missile launch sites. China is a population
dense nation consisting of far less territory than Russia. Who would suffer more in an exchange of nuclear missiles? I think the
answer is clear. For this reason, Beijing is not thinking about war with Russia, or making Russia "collapse," as you say.
Wow, I can write comments here. I am russian, so I can tell the Mordor's version. The article is generally objective, but the
author was cunning in a few points
1) The principal reason why Yanukovich refused to sign the agreement with Europe was the duty free zone with Russia. Russians
sad: ok, You will sign the agreement with Europe, but we have high customs duties with europeneans, so we will break our free
trade zone agreement. Russia was the biggest export market for Ukraine and ukranians understood that they will lose a lot of money.
But Maidan decided differently.
2) Today the Russian primary strategy for Ukraine is do nothing and wait, we have no any influence in this country. We understand
that Europe and USA will not feed this country a lot of time. Internal contradictions will ruin this country before our intervention
3) But we support new government of Zelensky because he has an opportunity to implement Minsk agreements (may be). It will
be enough to close this deal and move on
But we support new goverment of Zelensky because he has an oportunity to implement Minsk aggreements (may be). It will be enough
to close this deal and move on
I do not agree with this. how Zelensky can end the war when the security forces and the army are controlled by Avakov and the
punitive battalions do not even know who controls?
the support of any government in Ukraine is due to the fact that our countries still have a fairly large turnover. while we trade
with ukraine will cooperate ..
But now Poland and other Central European states were similarly interested in changing their position -- from being Euro-Atlantic
frontline states to shifting that line further east
I believe that this is a big reason why Maidan occured. It is also a big reason for the war in Ukraine today. The Poles have
had a hand in this issue from the very beginning. Poland is literally an aggressor state at this point, stoking trouble in Ukraine.
America's greatest sin in all of this has been to allow itself to be influenced by Poland and the Baltic states. Just like
America allowed itself to be led by the nose by its "allies" in the Syrian War. We're talking about two conflicts that have very
little to do with America's best interests, and which could result in disaster (nuclear exchange with Russia) if something goes
wrong.
It's absolutely nuts for anyone to think that nuclear equipped Russia would allow Poland and America to have their way in Ukraine,
which is virtually Russia's front porch. By supporting our Polish "ally," the US has come close to creating a Cuban Missile Crisis
in reverse. In 1963 the Russians provoked America. Since 2014, America has been provoking Russia. It could get much worse.
I believe that this is a big reason why Maidan occured. It is also a big reason for the war in Ukraine today. The Poles have
had a hand in this issue from the very beginning. Poland is literally an aggressor state at this point, stoking trouble in
Ukraine.
but after Maidan, Nuland directly stated that the United States spent 5 billion on "building democracy in Ukraine." The
United States invested 5 billion in a coup, but is Poland to blame? why? if Poland had really done that, then western Ukraine
would have become part of Poland immediately after the Maidan, but this did not happen. After the Maidan, Biden was photographed
in a pride chair, but not the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland;)
Okay, I can see where you're coming from. But still, the Russians were readying to station missiles in Cuba, just miles from
America's borders. That means the Russians must have known -- or should have known -- that they were risking war with the US.
That's my point.
Now America's doing the same thing as the USSR did in 1963. America is setting the stage to establish bases, radars, and missiles
in Ukraine. That's what preparing Ukraine for NATO membership is all about. Therefore, America must know -- or should know --
that it is risking war with Russia. In a major way.
Agree with the thrust of your agrument. The US knows it is stoking conflict with their actions (ie Donbass), but since they
are not directly in the firing line (barring major escalations) they simply don't care. They want to discomfort and undermine
Russia, drive a wedge between Russia and Germany/France, and force the Eurotrash into compliance with US diktat as a demonstration
of US power over its minions.
Re the Cuban Missile Crisis, on the balance it wasn't really a climb-down by the Soviets, but it is usually interpreted that
way, especially as anti-Krushchev factions in the USSR were succesful in portraying it that way as part of their palace coup.
The US remoived its misiles from Turkey, promised not to update them with new ones, and undertook not to repeat any more "Bay
of Pigs" attempts at overthrowing Castro by force of arms. All the Soviets needed to do was halt their mobilisation and similarly
agree not to base missiles. On the balance, the Soviets played brinkmanship well and won real concessions in exchange for very
little. Krushchevs problem was really that he marketted the ploy very poorly and was able to be portrayed as a loser by his political
enemies, and Westeners have happily repeated the narratives ever since.
And what? US placed their missiles in every corner of the Globe, including Soviet/Russian borders. Why USSR can't place it's
missiles in Cuba?
BTW, what Gary Powers did in his U-2 in the sky above Ekaterinburg 01.05.1960?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
My point is that each power is expected to respect the other's buffer zones. That's how the powers have gotten along historically.
If and when one side disrespects the other's buffer zone, major trouble is right around the corner.
Generally, in these confrontations between the nuclear superpowers, the side with the less to lose is the first to back down.
That side is always the one that has overreached. In 1963 it was the Soviets who overreached. It's looking increasingly clear
that since 2014, it's the US that's overreached.
The US will find a graceful way to end the Ukraine-NATO expansion issue, something amounting to a face-saving American retreat
from the region. Putin will likely make it easy for America to pull out without loss of prestige.
In general, you are right, but in 60's it was not Soviets, who overreached. It was US planes intervened in Soviet airspace,
not vice versa. It was US, who firstly placed missiles in Turkey in 1961, not USSR in Cuba in 1963.
Ukraine is not going anywhere, because of 115 Mrd. outstanding Debt. Ukraine lost 85% of their Industrial Base in the last
5 Years. Most of them working for Russian Companies. Those Companies get Advanced Payments from Russia till 2014 worth about 10
Mrd. for Material and Salaries. That Money is not coming again. Russian Companies replace 90% of all Ukraine deliveries during
the last 5 Years - more modern and especially with far better time frames. Ukraine has a minor Cash Reserve of 7 Billion USD.
Whatever happens to Ukraine we can be sure of one thing, through our contributions via the World Bank, the IMF and Obama's
loan guarantees, the one million dollars a day paid by U.S taxpayers directly into the pockets of Ukrainian Oligarchs will continue
in perpetuity.
I doubt Putin is in any hurry to relieve us of that 'honor' the man is a master of playing the U.S for a sucker.
You are correct on most counts. However, I think that Putin wants the US to scale down its Ukraine involvement ASAP. That's
because Russia's nightmare is NATO expansion into Ukraine. Therefore, the sooner the US backs away, the less likely Russia will
have to fight a future war in order to keep NATO off of its front yard. Nobody, including Putin, wants war.
Ukraine needs internal stability, this means peace treaty with rebels and some kind of minimal agreement with Russia. Country
needs to buy time, it is too much to expect to fight war, to do reforms and fight corruption and to develop all at the same time.
NATO expansion to East proved to be big destabilizing factor for Ukraine, its geopolitical situation is difficult. It will
always need to balance and make concessions between Eastern and Western interests.
New president looks very promising, hopefully he will be able to bring country back to stability and push it more toward faster
economical development and national reconciliation.
You make some good points regarding stability within the country. The amount now spent on fighting the war in Donbas will not
go down as Ukraine will need to continue to rebuild their military to include new fighters and new ships for the navy however
the killing will stop. Any agreement made with Putin should be made with eyes wide open as Russia has no honor so agreements are
worthless only a potent enough military will guarantee Ukraine's peace.
Peace at any cost is not acceptable and any plan that allows complete autonomy should be a no go, it would be better to just
build a wall along the existing line and rid the country of a fifth columnist element. If the plan allows for local elections,
local use of Russian, local police forces not military but police that is acceptable. These elections must allow for all residents
who resided in the area prior to the war to vote and for all Ukrainian political parties to participate.
Zelenskiy has made corruption a key to his election and it is imperative that he takes some bold action(s) soon to set the
tone. I am a little concerned that he has selected some less than pure individuals to be part of his presidential team, apparently
he hasn't picked up on how bad the optics are by having a lawyer that worked for Kolomosky as your chief of staff?
Cracking down on the oligarchs would allow Ukraine to have a standard of living like Poland within a very few years and many of
the Ukrainians that now work in Poland could come home an make as much money.
The presidential vote proved that at least 73% of Ukrainians agreed that a new beginning was needed hence Zelnskiy being elected.
The reason IMHO that "national reconciliation" hasn't been achieved is the continued Russian interference/influence in Ukraine.
It hasn't been long enough for Ukraine as an independent nation to come to terms with the past history. This part of the world
has seen millions killed over the past 100+ years, the country hasn't come to grips with that there is still finger pointing and
until that is dealt with the reconciliation will be difficult.
The desire to join NATO is all on Russia and it's continuous interference in Ukraine. In all reality NATO is a long way off
as Ukraine needs to do a lot to bring the country up to NATO standards including in the corruption realm.
This part of the world has seen millions killed over the past 100+ years
Ukraine has been used an invasion route by Western aggressors who want to conquer Russia. That's resulted in Russia suffering
millions killed in the 20th century, and hundreds of thousands more killed in earlier wars.
You keep failing to see matters from Russia's perspective. You only think about Ukraine's most selfish national interests.
You've got to understand that any security arrangement in that part of the world will have to be a shared security plan. It will
have to consider and respect Russia's concerns. NATO is not the answer here. Militarization of a Ukraine led by far-right wing
nationalists is not the answer either.
Ukraine's only path to peace and security is to accept the status of Finlandization.
If the plan allows for local elections, local use of Russian, local police forces not military but police that
is acceptable.
It's too late for that. Remember, the Ukrainian ATO invaded Donbass and killed many thousands of innocent local people. For
this reason, Donbass will never allow the Ukrainian military onto its soil.
Yes, I read what you said. That's why I highlighted "military" in my quote. You are saying that Donbass Russians are expected
to allow themselves to be occupied by the Ukrainian military, as if they are conquered, humiliated people. I am saying that Russia
and Donbass will never let that happen.
Let's not overlook that it appears very much like the war is ending now, with Ukraine submitting to the terms set by Donbass
and Russia. That means Zelensky will have to drink his poison soup and allow the Donbass militia to have exclusive and unrestricted
military rights within Donbass, and along the region's borders. That's unavoidable.
Even if you go by Minsk II which plainly does not allow for a Separatist Military there is zero chance that Ukraine will agree
to anything resembling a "military". This territory will be under Ukrainian sovereignty and the border will be under Ukrainian
sovereignty. The autonomy will be for language, education, elections of local councils, cultural endeavors etc...
It is the thugs in charge who are supported by the Kremlin are the ones that envision some quasi country within Ukraine. If
you were to go out into the villages the average person wants the war to end and life to go back to as close to what it was before
this all started. The thugs in charge know that their power and authority will go away if truly free and fair elections are to
be held without Russian and mercenary gun toting thugs walking the streets. They are the ones that are worried as their world
will come to an end if real peace comes to past.
If you were to go out into the villages the average person wants the war to end and life to go back to as close to what
it was before this all started. The thugs in charge know that their power and authority will go away if truly free and fair elections
are to be held...
You are in denial of the facts. Respected international polling agencies have taken polls inside the rebel held portion of
Donbass. The results confirm that the people there want nothing to do with the Ukrainian government, and that they identify themselves
as an extension of Russia.
The only open question among the Donbass people is whether they want to be annexed by Russia (many do), or whether they want
to remain in Ukraine as a completely autonomous region, running all of their own affairs (many like this idea too).
But under no circumstances do the Donbass people want the Ukrainian army to enter their territory, establish bases or outposts,
and then garrison the border with Russia. Why would the Donbass people have fought for five hard, victorious years only to accept
this ignominious outcome? It makes no sense. Donbass and Russia won. Ukraine lost. The winners will not let the losers take military
control of their homeland. No possible way.
From the way your posts read, it's obvious you are way, way oversold on anti-Russian propaganda.
Who says that the Ukrainian Army is going to go into this area of Donbas? Th border will be secured by Ukrainian Border personnel
as it is on every other part of the border. Ukraine is currently decentralizing services and responsibility in the rest of the
country withheld control coming from Kyiv. A modified version of that for occupied Donbas to include local elections, language,
education and local law enforcement is what they should expect. In exchange Kyiv promises to rebuild destroyed infrastructure
and provide economic assistance to the area.
If that isn't good enough then as I said build a wall and cut them lose and let Putin take on the burden which he doesn't want.
Money coming form Russia to rebuild will be a long time in coming and what they have now is pretty much what they can expect for
the future. Of course the educate and most of the young have left the area an only the poor pensioners who had no where to go
are left.
Even if you go by Minsk II which plainly does not allow for a Separatist Military there is zero chance that Ukraine will
agree to anything resembling a "military"
You're living in a dream world if you think this. The reality is that Ukraine has lost the war. Zelensky wouldn't dare to implement
Minsk II unless he were leading a defeated nation, a nation that was throwing in the towel. We're talking about a complete capitulation.
That's what Minsk II means.
I am certain that Zelensky fully expects that once Minsk II is implemented, Ukraine will be somehow be maneuvered into accepting
that the Donbass military is in charge of Donbass and the abutting section of the Russian-Ukraine frontier.
Most likely, after Donbass holds internationally ratified elections per Minsk II, the newly elected officials will claim that
they are officially part of Ukraine's government. From there, they will claim that the Donbass rebel militia, therefore, is officially
an extension of Ukraine's national army. Then, finally, the Donbass leaders and Russia will say that "returning control of the
border to Ukraine" means, in reality, putting the border under the control of the Donbass militia.
Possibly the Donbass militia will wear Ukrainian army uniforms, just for show. But believe me: there's no way the victors in
this war are going to settle for surrendering military control of their territory to a despised, alien military force (i.e., the
Ukrainian army).
There's no possible way that Putin, Russia, or the Donbass rebels would have pushed the Minsk II Accords on Ukraine unless
it one of the treaty's unstated implications is that the Ukrainian military is ejected from the region permanently. That's what
Russia and Donbass fought to achieve. It's unthinkable that they would settle for anything less.
I'm certain that Zelensky and everyone else understands this.
It will not happen Minsk II will not be implemented. Th eUkrainian foreign minister already stated what will be the approach
in the Normandy talks an edit isn't Minsk II.
"The thugs in charge know that their power and authority will go away if truly free and fair elections are to be held without
Russian and mercenary gun toting thugs walking the streets."
What nonsense. You really think that voters in Donetsk & Lugansk would to reward Kiev authorities with their support in light
of the atrocities the "volunteer" battalions have dished out to civilians over the last 5 years???
You can cry about "thugs" or "mercenaries" all you like (in a futile attempt to de-legitimise the views of the seperatists)
but your bias is clear when you whitewash the crimes of Banderites and Neo-Nazis. Or maybe you would prefer to adopt the US MSM
ploy and simply pretend that these factions don't exist, or that no warcrimes have been committed?
You really think that voters in Donetsk & Lugansk would to reward Kiev authorities...
You make a valid point. I'd add also that the rebel controlled areas are the parts of Donetsk and Lugansk where the ethnic
Russian demographic majorities are heaviest. That means there's virtually zero chance that any elections held in that zone will
favor Kiev.
...as Ukraine will need to continue to rebuild their military to include new fighters and new ships for the navy...
Impossible. That's because there aren't enough Ukrainians who feel nationalistic enough to be willing to lay down their lives
in war for Ukraine. The reason for this problem is that a huge minority of Ukrainians are ethnic Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians
who won't fight Russia. Many other Ukrainian people are ambivalent about national identity, and will not honor their military
obligations.
In some ways, Ukraine's military problem today is akin to that suffered by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in WW1. The Austro-Hungarian
state was multi-national, and much of its population did not share the political and national values of the rulers in Vienna and
Budapest.
Multi-national countries always have trouble fielding political reliable militaries. Even the Soviet Union, a superpower, had
a bottom one-third of military recruits (most from Cental Asia) that simply weren't politically reliable.
Ukraine's military future looks very grim. Only if Kiev grants independence to the non-Ukrainian regions will the country finally
have a population of people who share the same national and political values. That will have to precede Ukraine building any kind
of competent army.
The presidential vote proved that at least 73% of Ukrainians agreed that a new beginning was needed hence Zelnskiy being
elected.
That Ukrainian majority is exhausted and demoralized by the Donbass War. They want peace at any cost, even if that means granting
virtual independence to Donbass. Even if that means allowing Russia to use Donbass as an agent through which it can influence
Ukraine's domestic political situation. That's the "new beginning" that Ukrainians have in mind.
There's no way Zelensky can be in power while simultaneously continuing the Donbass War. Ukrainians elected him to get the
country out of that agony.
My wife is Ukrainian and they will not accept Russia running things through a Fifth column in Donbas. They might as well just
wall it off and be done with it makes zero sense to allow your rendition.
"... On the other hand, as Targ explains, are the Trumpian, "America First" nationalist capitalists. This faction of the ruling class, while also supporting global dominance and a permanent war economy (military-related spending will consume 48 percent of the 2020 federal budget) favors trade restrictions, economic nationalism, building walls and anti-immigrant policies. Although Trump is inconsistent, bumbling and sometimes contradictory, he's departed from the neocon's agenda by making overtures to North Korea and Russia, voicing doubts about NATO as an expensive relic from the past that is being dangerously misused outside of Europe, not being afraid to speak bluntly to EU allies, frequently mentioning ending our "endless, ridiculous and costly wars," asserting that the U.S. is badly overextended and saying "The job of our military is not to police the world." ..."
"... This is a high stakes intra-ruling class struggle and neither side cares a fig about what's best for the American people or those beyond our borders. At this point it's impossible to know how it will play out but grasping the underlying dynamics explains much about current U.S. domestic and foreign policy. This understanding may, in turn, point toward how opponents of America's oligarchic elites can most expeditiously use their time and energy. ..."
"... Foremost is the fact that Trump's intra-elite enemies despise him not for being a neo-fascistic demagogue, a despicable human being devoid of a conscience, or for the brouhaha over Ukraine. Their animus is rooted in the conviction that Trump has been a foot dragging imperialist, an equivocal caretaker of empire, unreliable pull-the-trigger Commander-in-chief (e.g.Iran) and transparent truth-teller about the real motives behind U.S. foreign policy. These are his unforgivable sins and if he's impeached or denied the Oval Office by some other means, they will be real reasons. ..."
"... One of Trump's most traitorous acts is that he's been consistent, at least rhetorically, in being opposed to U.S. troops being killed in "endless wars." One need not agree with his reasons to find merit in this worthy objective. His motives probably include Nativism, racism, foreign investment stability, the wars causing more refugees to come here, his massive ego, appeals to his voting base, or simply because he believes both he and the "real America" would be better off. For him, the latter two are synonymous. ..."
"... For this treachery, those arrayed against Trump include at least, the Pentagon-CIA-armaments lobby, MSM editors like those at CNN, The New York Times ..."
Over the past few months President Trump has unilaterally by Tweet and telephone begun to
dismantle the U.S. military's involvement in the Middle East. The irony is amazing, because in
a general overarching narrative sense, this is what the marginalized antiwar movement has been
trying to do for decades.
1
Prof. Harry Targ, in his important piece "United States foreign policy: yesterday, today,
and tomorrow," (MR online, October 23, 2919), reminds us of the factional dispute among U.S.
foreign policy elites over how to maintain the U.S. empire. On the one hand are the neoliberal
global capitalists who favor military intervention, covert operations, regime change,
strengthening NATO, thrusting China into the enemy vacuum and re-igniting the Cold War with
Russia. All of this is concealed behind lofty rhetoric about humanitarianism, protecting human
rights, promoting democracy, fighting terrorism and American exceptionalism. Their mantra is
Madeleine Albright's description of the United States as the world's "one indispensable
nation."
On the other hand, as Targ explains, are the Trumpian, "America First" nationalist
capitalists. This faction of the ruling class, while also supporting global dominance and a
permanent war economy (military-related spending will consume 48 percent of the 2020 federal
budget) favors trade restrictions, economic nationalism, building walls and anti-immigrant
policies. Although Trump is inconsistent, bumbling and sometimes contradictory, he's departed
from the neocon's agenda by making overtures to North Korea and Russia, voicing doubts about
NATO as an expensive relic from the past that is being dangerously misused outside of Europe,
not being afraid to speak bluntly to EU allies, frequently mentioning ending our "endless,
ridiculous and costly wars," asserting that the U.S. is badly overextended and saying "The job
of our military is not to police the world."
I would add that Trump is also an "American exceptionalist" but ascribes a very different
provincial meaning to the term, something closer to a crabbed provincialism, an insular
"Shining City on a Hill," surrounded by a moat.
This is a high stakes intra-ruling class struggle and neither side cares a fig about
what's best for the American people or those beyond our borders. At this point it's impossible
to know how it will play out but grasping the underlying dynamics explains much about current
U.S. domestic and foreign policy. This understanding may, in turn, point toward how opponents
of America's oligarchic elites can most expeditiously use their time and energy.
Foremost is the fact that Trump's intra-elite enemies despise him not for being a
neo-fascistic demagogue, a despicable human being devoid of a conscience, or for the brouhaha
over Ukraine. Their animus is rooted in the conviction that Trump has been a foot dragging
imperialist, an equivocal caretaker of empire, unreliable pull-the-trigger Commander-in-chief
(e.g.Iran) and transparent truth-teller about the real motives behind U.S. foreign policy.
These are his unforgivable sins and if he's impeached or denied the Oval Office by some other
means, they will be real reasons.
One of Trump's most traitorous acts is that he's been consistent, at least rhetorically,
in being opposed to U.S. troops being killed in "endless wars." One need not agree with his
reasons to find merit in this worthy objective. His motives probably include Nativism, racism,
foreign investment stability, the wars causing more refugees to come here, his massive ego,
appeals to his voting base, or simply because he believes both he and the "real America" would
be better off. For him, the latter two are synonymous.
For this treachery, those arrayed against Trump include at least, the
Pentagon-CIA-armaments lobby, MSM editors like those at CNN, The New York Times and
The Washington Post , NSA, Zionist neocons, the DNC, establishment Democrats, some
hawkish Republican senators, many lifestyle liberals still harboring a sentimental faith in
American goodness and even EU and NATO elites who've benefited from being faithful lackeys to
Washington's global imperialism.
In a recent interview, Major Danny Sjursen, retired army officer and West Point instructor
with tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, notes that "The last bipartisan issue in American
politics today is warfare, forever warfare." In terms of the military, that means " even the
hint of getting out of the establishment interventionist status quo is terrifying to these
generals, terrifying to these former intelligence officers from the Obama administration who
seem to live on MSNBC now." Sjursen adds that many of these generals (like Mattis) have already
found lucrative work with the military industrial complex.
2
In response to Trump's announcement about removing some U.S. troops from the region, we find
an op-ed in The New York Times by Admiral William McRaven where he states that Trump
"should be out of office sooner than later. It's time for a new person in the Oval Office,
Republican, Democrat or Independent. The fate of the nation depends on it." The unmistakeable
whiff of support for a soft coup is chilling. If Trump can't be contained, he must be deposed
one way or another.
And this is all entirely consistent with the fact that the national security state was
totally caught off guard by Trump's victory in 2016. For them, Trump was a loose cannon,
erratic and ultra-confrontational, someone they couldn't control. Their favored candidate was
the ever reliable, Wall Street-friendly, war-mongering Hillary Clinton or even Jeb Bush. Today,
barring a totally chastised Trump, the favorites include a fading Biden, Pence, a reprise of
Clinton or someone in her mold but without the baggage.
For Trump's establishment enemies, another closely related failing is his habit of blurting
out inconvenient truths. I'm not the first person to say that Trump is the most honest
president in my lifetime. Yes, he lies most of the time but as left analyst Paul Street puts
it, "Trump is too clumsily and childishly brazen in laying bare the moral nothingness and
selfishness of the real material-historical bourgeois society that lives beneath the veils of
'Western civilization' and 'American democracy.'"
3
All his predecessors took pains or were coached to conceal their imperialist actions behind
declarations of humanitarian interventionism but Trump has pulled the curtains back to reveal
the ugly truths about U.S. foreign policy. As such, the carefully calibrated propaganda fed to
the public in endless reiterations over a lifetime is jeopardized whenever Trump utters a
transparent truth. This is intolerable.
Here are a few examples culled from speeches, interviews and press reports:
+ At a May 10, 2017 Oval Office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislayak, Trump said he was unconcerned about Moscow's interference
in the U.S. election because "We do the same thing in elections in other countries." [White
House officials were so alarmed they tried to limit access to the transcript].
+ When asked about whether Putin is a killer, Trump sarcastically asked whether "our
country was so innocent?" and added, "Our country does plenty of killing."
+ His reaction to Saudi Arabia's murder of Khashoggi was that "they really messed up."
[Translation: He/our government didn't care about what happened except that the Saudis
bungled the job. Uttering this inconvenient truth removed the usual fig leaf claim of moral
outrage and checked off another box on the Trump-Must-Go list maintained by the
globalists].
+ "The Kurds are no angels." [This dried up all the crocodile tears being shed by both
Dems and Republicans].
+ On Libya: Asked about a role for the U.S. in Libya, Trump responded "I do not see a
role in Libya. I think the United States has, right now, enough roles. We're in a role
everywhere." He did say "I would just go in and take the oil," and repeated this intention
regarding Syria. [Once again Trump sabotaged any pretense of righteous motives behind
Washington's foreign policy in the Middle East. To wit: It's always been about blood for
oil].
+ When firing John Bolton, his former national security advisor, Trump remarked "He made
some very big mistakes. When he talked about the Libya model for Kim Jong Un, that was not a
good statement to make. You just look at what happened with Gaddafi." [Here, Trump's truth
telling undermined the standard U.S. position by saying it makes perfect sense for other
countries to obtain nukes if they wish to avoid being destroyed by us.]
+ "We're in many, many countries. I do know the exact number of countries we have troops
in but I'm embarrassed to say it because it's so foolish. We're in countries that don't even
like us some people, whether it's – – you call it the military-industrial complex
or beyond that, they'd like me to stay the want me to fight forever That's what they want to
do, fight. A lot of companies want to to fight because they make their weapons based on
fighting, not based on peace. And they take up a lot of people. I want to bring our soldiers
back home."
+ During a private military briefing, Trump stunned officials by scowling, "Seriously,
who gives a shit about Afghanistan?" And he continued, "So far we've in for $7 trillion,
fellas. $7 trillion including Iraq. Worst decision ever "
+ On Ukraine: "The people of Crimea would rather be with Russia than where they
were."
+ On Syria, "Let someone else fight over this long blood stained sand." And more broadly,
he said "The same people that I watched and read -- give me and the United States advice --
were the people I've been watching and reading for many years. They are the ones who got us
into the Middle East mess but never have the vision or courage to get us out. They just
talk."
+ Responding to South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham's criticism: "The people of
South Carolina don't want us to get into another war with Turkey, a NATO member, or with
Syria. Let them fight their own wars."
+ On Middle East wars: "All of those lives lost, the young men and women gravely wounded
-- so many -- the Middle East is less safe, less stable, and less secure than before these
conflicts began."
As noted earlier, the endgame is not in sight. Trump seems without a clear strategy for
moving forward and from all reports he can't depend on his current coterie of White House
advisors to produce one. Further, he may lack the necessary political in-fight skills or
tenacity to see it through. When some of his Republican "allies" savaged his announcement to
withdraw troops from Syria, he backtracked and made some, at least cosmetic concessions.
However, the fact that Trump's position remains popular with his voter base and especially with
veterans of these wars will give pause to Republicans. If some finally join the Democrats in
voting for impeachment over Ukraine-gate they may minimize re-election risks by hiding their
real motives behind pious claims -- as will most Democrats -- about "protecting the
constitution and the rule of law".
Now, lest I be misunderstood, nothing I've written here should be construed as support for
Donald Trump or that I believe he's antiwar. Trump is aberration only in that his brand of
Western imperialism means that the victims remain foreigners while U.S. soldiers remain out of
harm's way. He knows that boots on the ground can quickly descend into bodies in the ground and
unlike his opponents, coffins returning to Dover Air Base are not worth risking his personal
ambitions. This is clearly something to build upon. We don't know if Trump views drones, cyber
warfare and proxies as substitutes but his intra-elite opponents remain extremely dubious. In
any event, that's another dimension to expose and challenge.
Finally, we know the ruling class in a capitalist democracy -- an oxymoron -- expends
enormous time and resources to obtain a faux "consent of the governed" through misinformation
conveyed via massive, lifelong ideological indoctrination. For them, citizen's policing
themselves is more efficient than coercion and precludes raising questions that might
delegitimize the system. Obviously force and fear are hardly unknown -- witness the mass
incarceration and police murder of black citizens -- but one only has to look around to see how
successful this method of control has been.
Nevertheless, as social historian Margaret Jacoby wisely reminds us, "No institution is safe
if people simply stop believing the assumptions that justify its existence."
4 Put another way, the system simply can't accommodate certain "dangerous ideas."
Today, we see promising political fissures developing, especially within the rising
generation, and it's our responsibility to help deepen and widen these openings through
whatever means at our disposal.
Gosh, the Taliban wiped out poppy production in 2000. The Twin Towers were destroyed in 2001.
Bush (son of CIA Bush) invaded Afghanistan to... well, to do what? To defeat the Taliban?
Why? To restore poppy production? To find bin Laden? Didn't really do that. After all he was
in Pakistan. And what has happened to poppy farming since we invaded? Booming. For 17 years.
Those farming families are doing really well under the protection of U.S. troops. Just like
the oil families in Syria that are protected by U.S. troops. Now, Trump seems to be throwing
a spanner in all this. Of course, "We came, we saw, he died [giggle, giggle]" Clinton would
have never committed Trump's crimes. Trump's just a loose cannon.
Angleton, quoting Jesus, said "In my Father's house are many mansions."
I guess we know which mansion Brennan inhabits.
May 20, 2001
The first American narcotics experts to go to Afghanistan under Taliban rule have concluded
that the movement's ban on opium-poppy cultivation appears to have wiped out the world's
largest crop in less than a year, officials said today.
The American findings confirm earlier reports from the United Nations drug control program
that Afghanistan, which supplied about three-quarters of the world's opium and most of the
heroin reaching Europe, had ended poppy planting in one season.
But the eradication of poppies has come at a terrible cost to farming families, [A
TERRIBLE COST TO FARMING FAMILIES, OH, THOSE POOR FARMING FAMILIES]and experts say it will
not be known until the fall planting season begins whether the Taliban can continue to
enforce it.
''It appears that the ban has taken effect,'' said Steven Casteel, assistant administrator
for intelligence at the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington.
The findings came in part from a Pakistan-based agent of the administration who was one of
the two Americans on the team just returned from eight days in the poppy-growing areas of
Afghanistan.
Tue 11 Sep 2001: 9/11
Tue 25 Sep 2001:
In a dramatic and little-noticed reversal of policy, the Taliban have told farmers in
Afghanistan that they are free to start planting poppy seeds again if the Americans decide to
launch a military attack.
Drug enforcement agencies last night confirmed that they expect to see a massive resumption
of opium cultivation inside Afghanistan, previously the world's biggest supplier of heroin,
in the next few weeks.
The Taliban virtually eradicated Afghanistan's opium crop last season after an edict by
Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban leader.
In July last year he said that growing opium was "un-Islamic" and warned that anyone
caught planting seeds would be severely punished.
Taliban soldiers enforced the ruling two summers ago and made thousands of villagers
across Afghanistan plough up their fields. Earlier this year UN observers agreed that
Afghanistan's opium crop had been completely wiped out.
"... The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or supply documents to them. ..."
"... Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. ..."
"... There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one of his top aides. ..."
"... General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat." ..."
"... Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in Syria. ..."
"... Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in Washington. ..."
By a near party-line vote of 232-196, the US House of Representatives voted Thursday for a
resolution laying out the procedures for the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump
that was begun September 24. The resolution sets the stage for the holding of public, televised
hearings and the likely drawing up of articles of impeachment in the course of the next
month.
Only two Democrats out of 233 in the House voted against the resolution, Jeff Van Drew of
New Jersey and Colin Peterson of Minnesota. Only one member elected as a Republican, Justin
Amash of Michigan, voted for the resolution. He left the Republican Party in July because of
his support for impeachment, and he now sits as an independent.
The sharp divisions over the resolution were reflected in the hour-long debate, in which
Republican defenders of Trump denounced the impeachment inquiry with hysterical anticommunist
rhetoric, calling it "Soviet-style" and a "show trial." Democrats wrapped themselves in the
American flag -- or displayed it on a large placard as they spoke, in the case of Speaker Nancy
Pelosi -- and denounced Trump for endangering US "national security."
The procedure laid down in the eight-page resolution, drafted Wednesday by the House Rules
Committee, gives an outsized role to the House Intelligence Committee, which is to begin public
hearings sometime in November at which many of the witnesses who have testified behind closed
doors will be asked to do so again in front of television cameras.
The Intelligence Committee, along with four other committees conducting investigations into
various aspects of President Trump's personal, business and official conduct, will report its
findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually draw up any articles of impeachment,
vote on them, and send them to the full House for final action.
The overall procedures, including provisions for extended questioning of witnesses by
representatives of both the majority and minority parties, conform generally to similar
measures adopted during the impeachment hearings against President Richard Nixon in 1974 and
President Bill Clinton in 1998.
The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend
and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his
order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or
supply documents to them.
In the event of continued presidential stonewalling of the House committees, the resolution
provides that the chair of the Judiciary Committee "shall have the discretion to impose
appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the president or his counsel
under these procedures to call or question witnesses."
In other words, if Trump continues to block testimony and evidence, his attorneys will not
be allowed to cross-examine those witnesses who do appear despite the full-throated opposition
of the White House. Given that many officials and former officials of the Trump administration
have agreed to testify under subpoena, this could become a significant issue.
The special role of the House Intelligence Committee underscores the reactionary nature of
the Democrats' impeachment drive. Trump is being targeted, not for his real crimes as
president, attacking immigrants, undermining democratic rights, and asserting quasi-dictatorial
powers, but for his foreign policy actions that are opposed by a substantial section of the US
military-intelligence apparatus.
The witnesses testifying before the closed-door sessions of the Intelligence Committee are
not immigrant mothers, cruelly and in some cases permanently separated from their children, or
the victims of Trump-inspired fascist gunmen like the El Paso mass shooter. Instead, they are
an array of State Department and military officials at odds with Trump's efforts to browbeat
the government of Ukraine into supplying him with political dirt against former vice president
Joe Biden, viewed by Trump as a likely opponent in the 2020 election.
Particularly significant in that context is the announcement that the Intelligence Committee
has set a November 7 date for the testimony of John Bolton, Trump's former national security
advisor. It is not clear whether Bolton will testify, but the potential alignment of the
Democrats and one of the most notorious war criminals in the American government is a clear
demonstration of the reactionary motives of the Democrats, who are acting as front men for
rabid warmongers in the national-security state.
Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's
top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the
National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons
of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the
Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order
to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China
from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian
Oceans.
Morrison is the highest-ranking Trump aide to provide evidence to the Intelligence
Committee, and he announced his impending departure from the White House on Wednesday night,
hours before he was sworn in as a witness. According to leaks to the press from the closed-door
hearing, Morrison largely confirmed the testimony of other witnesses, particularly Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman, that there was a direct quid pro quo involved in US policy towards Ukraine:
Trump demanded a public investigation into the Democratic Party and the Bidens, in return for
military aid and a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House.
There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the
gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to
restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that
benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that
Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would
not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the
Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one
of his top aides.
There were further indications of support for the impeachment drive -- or at least for the
national-security officials who have come forward to testify against Trump -- from the top
levels of the military and diplomatic establishment. General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired
only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday
defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling
him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary
contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat."
And in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is expected
to confirm his nomination to be US Ambassador to Russia, Deputy Secretary of State John
Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was
the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer
her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on
the Bidens.
Asked whether it was "ever appropriate for the president to use his office to solicit
investigations into his domestic political opponents," Sullivan replied, "I don't think that
would be in accord with our values." Given Trump's frequent declarations that his telephone
conversation with Zelensky, in which he made just such a request, was "perfect," Sullivan's
statement is extraordinary. It suggests an unprecedented degree of open revolt against Trump
within the national-security establishment.
The real motives of the impeachment drive were spelled out with particular frenzy in a
column by neoconservative Max Boot, who, like Bolton, has been an all-out supporter of US
military aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and throughout the world. Writing in the
Washington Post , under the headline, "More Trump gifts to Russia," he declares,
"Trump is bringing the United States to its knees and making Russia great again."
Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department
axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against
pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in
Syria.
He writes: "Russian soldiers are entering U.S. bases and taking up the joint patrolling
duties with the Turkish army that U.S. troops had been performing until recently. The fate of
Syria was settled not in Washington but in Sochi -- Putin's favorite Black Sea resort. Trump
has given Russia what it has sought for decades: a leading role in the Middle East. This is the
biggest geopolitical shift in the region since 1972 when Egypt's Anwar Sadat expelled Soviet
advisers and aligned with Washington."
Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step
towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US
role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in
Washington.
by John Quiggin on October 13, 2019 On Facebook, my frined
Timothy Scriven pointed to an opinion piece by classics professor Ian Morris headlined
In the long run, wars make us safer and richer It's pushing a book with the clickbaity
title War! What is it Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to
Robots .". Timothy correctly guessed that I wouldn't like it.
Based on the headline, I was expecting a claim along the lines "wars stimulate technological
progress" which I refuted (to my own satisfaction at any rate) in Economics in Two
Lessons" . But the argument is much stranger than this. The claim is that war, despite its
brutality created big states, like the Roman empire, which then delivered peace and
prosperity.
For the classical world at 100 CE or so, the era on which Morris is an expert, that argument
seemed pretty convincing. As the famous Life of Brian sketch suggests, Roman rule delivered a
lot of benefits to its conquered provinces.
The next 1900 years or so present a bit of a problem, though. There have been countless wars
in that time, and no trend towards bigger states. On the contrary two or three dozen states
(depending on how you count them) now occupy the territory of the former Roman Empire.
You could cut the number down a bit by treating the European Union as a new empire, but then
you have an even bigger problem. The EU was not formed through war, but through a determination
to avoid it. Whatever you think about the EU in other respects, this goal has been
achieved.
Morris avoids the problem by a "no true Scotsman" argument. He admits in passing that the
1000 years of war following the high point of Rome had the effect of breaking down larger,
safer societies into smaller, more dangerous ones, but returns with relief to the era of true
wars, in which big states always win. That story works, roughly, until 1914, when the empires
he admires destroyed themselves, killing millions in the process.
After that, the argument descends into Pinker-style nonsense. While repeating the usual
stats about the decline in violent deaths, Morris mentions in passing that a nuclear war could
cause billions of deaths. He doesn't consider the obvious anthropic fallacy problem – if
such a war had happened, there would not be any op-eds in the Washington Post discussing the
implications for life expectancy.
I haven't read the book, and don't intend to. If someone can't present a 700 word summary of
their argument without looking silly, they shouldn't write opinion pieces. But, for what its
worth, FB friends who have read it agree that it's not very good.
William Meyer 10.13.19 at 12:31 pm (no link)
I have not read the book in question, so I don't know if the author made this point: "Since
violence or implicit violence is how we overcome essentially all collective action problems
as humans, war probably does belong in the human toolkit." Obviously it would be better if we
could find more and better alternatives to war, and remove the obvious glitches in the
alternatives (e.g., representative democracy, single-party states, etc.) we have tried in the
past. So I find it odd as I get old that so little energy/research/academic effort is devoted
by the human race to finding better means of collective decision making. Clearly our current
abilities in this field are completely inadequate. I ponder if this is because we are
incapable of doing better by some inherent flaw in our makeup or if it is because, as in some
many areas of life, the wicked work tirelessly to maintain the systems that enrich and
empower them. I suspect I'll never find out.
Omega Centauri 10.13.19 at 4:33 pm (no link)
There might be a case to be made for empire building conquest advancing human society. I
think it was primarily by forcing the mixing of cultures which otherwise would have been
relatively isolated from each other. Also empires tended to create safe internal trade
routes, the Silk Road was made possible by the Mongol empire.
At least the authors of books about such empires like to state that over a timespan of
centuries that empire creation was a net positive.
Orange Watch 10.13.19 at 7:07 pm (no link)
Tim Worstall and Dipper's suggestion that the EU is borne of war is mostly just a failure to
take Morris's claim on its unsophisticated face and instead assume it contains subtle
complexity that is obviously missing if you read the article itself:
This happened because about 10,000 years ago, the winners of wars began incorporating
the losers into larger societies. The victors found that the only way to make these larger
societies work was by developing stronger governments; and one of the first things these
governments had to do, if they wanted to stay in power, was suppress violence among their
subjects.
For the EU to have been a result of war in the sense that Morris means, it would have to
have been forcibly formed in 1945 by the US/UK/Russia forcibly incorporating Europe into it.
When Morris states "wars make us stronger and richer" he very simply means wars of conquest
are long-term net positives. He doesn't mean something subtle about nations banding together
to forestall further war; he bluntly means conquerors gluing together their conquests into
empires and then liberally applying boot leather to necks.
Mark Brady 10.13.19 at 7:56 pm (no link)
John Quiggin is, of course, well aware of this quotation, but some of you may not.
"Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of
destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us
how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see "miracles of
production" which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a postwar world made certainly
prosperous by an enormous "accumulated" or "backed up" demand. In Europe they joyously count
the houses, the whole cities that have been leveled to the ground and that "will have to be
replaced." In America they count the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon
stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out automobiles and tires, the obsolescent
radios and refrigerators. They bring together formidable totals.
"It is merely our old friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat
beyond recognition. This time it is supported by a whole bundle of related fallacies. It
confuses need with demand."
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Chapter 3, "The Blessings of Destruction."
Alex SL 10.13.19 at 8:37 pm (no link)
On one side, AFAIK the last few centuries of war in Europe have indeed seen a reduction of
the number of states. Yes, the trend was partly reversed since 1914, but never to the degree
of splintering that existed in the middle ages.
On the other side, even the widely accepted cases of supposedly 'beneficial' empires such
as the Romans bringing the Pax Romana and the Mongols allowing far-reaching trade and travel
need to be seen against the devastation they caused to make their victories possible. The
Romans, for example, committed genocide in Gaul and Carthage, and they enslaved millions.
Best case argument in my eyes is that a very successful war is beneficial because it stops
continuous smaller wars, which is still not exactly the same as a general "war is
beneficial". Why not just create institutional arrangements that avoid wars between small
nations in the first place?
fran6 10.13.19 at 9:26 pm (no link)
Here's another personality who's also unfazed by the evils of war (although, she does wish
more folks were "kind" to each other):
Stephen @11 Say what? Are you suggesting that the Soviet bloc was part of the EU? As both
your comment and Tim Worstall's unwittingly illustrate, the fact that the EU has been
entirely peaceful since its creation (by contrast with non-EU Europe) is not because
Europeans suddenly became pacifists.
Sorry if I have a hard time getting Morris' argument, but: towards the end, be seems to be
saying the world requires a "Globocop" like the US to ensure its prosperity. But how does
that relate to his wider point about the benefits of war? Does Morris believe the hegemon
owes it to itself, and to the rest of the world, to wage permanent war?
Morris sold out. This was evident in his book comparing the progress of China and Europe,
though that book made excellent points in between the fluff and is well worth reading. But he
is well versed enough in Chinese history to be aware of the ultimate example of armies
conquering and bringing peace to a large area, which happens repeatedly in Chinese history.
Actually, Chinese history itself shows that the opposite argument has more support, that
instead of war being valuable because one powerful country will conquer a large area and
bring peace to it, its valuable because competition between states who are worried about
other states getting a jump on them turns out to be valuable to progress. Large continental
empires, including the Roman one as well, tended to stagnate in terms of culture and
technology and become correct.
MFB 10.15.19 at 7:18 am (no link)
Well, the opinion-piece was published on Jeff Bezos' blog. Oligarchs are naturally in favour
of centralised power and therefore of empires (so long as they are at the apex thereof, which
they usually are). The best way to build an empire is through war.
Of course, the author has to say "despite Hitler, Stalin and Mao", for ideological
reasons. Actually, Hitler built his empire largely through the threat of war rather than
through war itself; once he had actually started the war, he antagonised three more powerful
empires than his own and his empire was then crushed. As for Stalin, he actually did various
double-back-somersaults to avoid getting into wars, and the "empire" which he built in
Eastern Europe as a result of winning a war he didn't want did not sustain itself. And of
course Mao didn't start any wars at all -- his name just had to be thrown in for reactionary
reasons.
It is true that the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British empires were built upon war.
But where are they now? The United States fought a lot of wars against its indigenous people,
but frankly it would still have been a global superpower if it had simply sidestepped most of
them, at least from about 1865 onward.
An interesting question: can it be that a professor of Classics doesn't actually have to
understand the concept of evidence-based argument in any case, because everything has already
been said on the subject and all you have to do is cherry-pick other people's statements?
Because that seems to be how that silly article reads.
And yes, the whole thing reeks of the better angels propaganda. Let's not forget, by the
way, that various members of the EU -- Britain, France, Italy et al -- have launched brutally
murderous wars elsewhere, and the fact that they don't fight among themselves doesn't make
them peaceful or moral entities.
@TheSophist #25: that was mentioned as a joke rather than self-publicity, but if you're
really interested: The Roman Empire: roots of imperialism (Pluto Press, 2020). Obviously
books about the Roman Empire are ten a penny; my main claim for this one, besides its being
less apologetic and/or gung-ho than most, is that I try to integrate the historical reality
with its reception, i.e. how people have subsequently deployed Rome as an example or model.
Maybe the Roman Empire delivered on peace, but prosperity is a bit more complicated. Some
years ago David Hays wrote a book on the history of technology. One of the things he did was
make a back-of-the-envelope estimate of material welfare at different levels of development.
He concluded that, while civilization has always been a good deal for the elite, it's been
rather iffy for peasants and workers. It's only during the Industrial Evolution that the
standard of living at the lower end of society rose above that of hunter-gatherers. So, the
prosperity delivered by the Roman Empire went mostly to the elite, not the peasantry.
Peter Erwin@43 wanted the Nazis to roll right up to the eastern border of Poland, etc. etc.
So did Hitler. And although I'm quite reluctant to read minds, especially dead one, I will
nevertheless guarantee the move into the Baltics was seen as a blow to his plans, even if
accepted for temporary advantage. You must always see who hates Stalin for beating Hitler,
and those rare few who object to his real crimes.
And, Erwin thinks Chinese troops being in Korea with permission is an aggression, while US
troops closing on Chinese borders is not. The US still isn't out of Korea, but China is, but
he can't figure out who the aggressor is.
Really, Peter Erwin really says it all. The maddest ant-Communist propaganda is now
official.
MFB 10.17.19 at 9:02 am (no link)
I don't want to unnecessarily dump on Peter Erwin, because I don't believe in kicking
disadvantaged children, but if he reads the original post he will notice that it was talking
about international wars, not civil wars. I'll admit the invasion of Finland (and of the
Baltic states and Poland) but those were fairly obviously ways of strengthening the USSR's
position in order to discourage a German invasion, and all took place within the boundaries
of the former Russian Empire which Stalin undoubtedly saw as the default position.
As to Mao, he didn't start the Korean war (as Erwin unwillingly admits) and all the other
wars except for the invasion of Vietnam were civil wars since they entailed moving into
Chinese-controlled territory which had broken away during the main civil war. I'll admit that
Vietnam was a problem, but then, since Mao had been dead for some time by then, it's would be
hard for Erwin to blame him except for the fact that Erwin clearly lives on Planet
Bizarro.
@John Quiggin The claim is that war, despite its brutality created big states, like the
Roman empire, which then delivered peace and prosperity
I don't think this is an intellectually generous summary of the arguments, as presented in
the article.
The author himself summarizes it as "war made states, and states made peace", and if it is
indeed true that the author often speaks of "larger, more organized societies" there is a
strong implication that for a society to be "large" in the sense discussed in the article, it
is not really necessary that it be territorially very wide (the most clear cut indication of
that is that the author refers to the European states of the 1600s as "big, settled states"
while they all were geographically tiny at the time). So the point of the author, if
interpreted with intellectual honesty, seems to me to be twofold: 1) that war has been a
crucial factor in the formation of complex, organized states and societies and 2) that these
complex, organized states and societies brought with them so many positive things that the
wars required to form them were worth it.
The second point is pure Pinker. I consider it logically meaningless, myself (it
ultimately relies on the concept that History proceeds like an individual who is choosing a
pair of shoes) and morally repugnant (it is not hard to see who will be pleased to have a
rhetorical tool that can justify any atrocity by the long term gains it will provide humanity
– indeed, it is instructive in that respect to read SS internal papers on when and why
children should be executed with their parents, and how to select people for that task:
contrary to what could be guessed, the manual recommends the soldiers who appear to have a
strong sense of empathy and morality, with the idea that they will those who will most
strongly endorse the "by doing this abominable act, we are sacrificing ourselves on behalf of
future generations" thesis).
The first point, however, appears to me to be broadly correct descriptively. Extracting an
interesting thesis out of it requires much more work than is indicated by the article,
however (I consider Ertman's Birth of the Levianthan an example of that kind of extra
work done successfully).
@John Quiggin Lots of people predicted, along the lines of your post, that with the
external threat of the USSR gone, and the US pulling back, the old warlike Europe would
reassert itself.
I think what we may call the "wide military context thesis" runs rather like this: because
of the experience of WWII and the Cold War, modern industrial states have amassed enormous
military power while at the same time knowing that they can experience total destruction if
they enter into a military conflict with a state of comparable military might. As a
consequence, peace dominates between them. So France is not at war with the United Kingdom or
Germany, certainly in part because they are all (for now) members of the EU but also in part
for the same reason Japan is not at war with South Korea and Russia not at war with
China.
Personally, I think it would be absurd to claim that the EU has played no role in the
pacification of Western Europe in the second half of the twentieth century, but I think it
would be equally absurd to deny the role of other factors that plainly play a major role in
the equally remarkable pacification of other regional areas in the absence of an economical
and political unification process (rise in prosperity, rise in education, aging populations,
increased military power ).
@7, Omega
Not really wanting to get into the "do empires benefit civilization by promoting trade"
argument, but having just read Lost Enlightenment, nothing in that lengthy tome suggests the
Silk Road city states gain any special advantage from the Mongol invasion. In fact, quite the
opposite. After the Mongols (in part for reasons preceeding the conquest), Central Asia never
regained its pre-eminence (it had actually not just been a facilitator of trade but also a
center of manufacture, culture, scientific progress). Maybe the trade routes hobbled along as
trade routes but the civilization that was both built by and facilitated trade did not
rebound. Most empires seem to get that there is wealth to be had from involvement in trade,
they don't always know how to keep the gold goose alive.
LFC 10.20.19 at 9:10 pm (no link)
"War made states and states made peace" is a riff on Charles Tilly's line "war made the state
and the state made war."
"... Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other main rival in the region, Damascus. ..."
Before the evacuation of 1,000 American troops from northern
Syria to western Iraq, the Pentagon had 2,000 US forces in Syria.
After the drawdown of US
troops at Erdogan's insistence in order for Ankara to mount a ground offensive in northern Syria,
the US has still deployed 1,000 troops, mainly in oil-rich eastern Deir al-Zor province and
at al-Tanf military base.
Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria,
Iraq and Jordan, and it straddles on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which
serves as a lifeline for Damascus.
Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around
al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained several Syrian militant groups there.
It's worth noting that rather than fighting the Islamic State, the purpose of continued presence
of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel's concerns regarding the expansion of
Iran's influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Regarding the oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate, it's worth pointing out
that Syria used to produce modest quantities of oil for domestic needs before the war – roughly 400,000
barrels per day, which isn't much compared to tens of millions barrels daily oil production in the
Gulf states.
Although Donald Trump crowed in a characteristic blunt manner in a tweet after the withdrawal of
1,000 American troops from northern Syria that Washington had deployed forces in eastern Syria where
there was oil,
the purpose of exercising control over Syria's oil is neither to smuggle oil
out of Syria nor to deny the valuable source of revenue to the Islamic State.
There is no denying the fact that the remnants of the Islamic State militants are still found in
Syria and Iraq but its emirate has been completely dismantled in the region and its leadership is on
the run. So much so that the fugitive caliph of the terrorist organization was killed in the bastion
of a rival jihadist outfit, al-Nusra Front in Idlib, hundreds of kilometers away from the Islamic State
strongholds in eastern Syria.
Much like the "scorched earth" battle strategy of medieval warlords – as in the case of the Islamic
State which early in the year burned crops of local farmers while retreating from its former strongholds
in eastern Syria –
Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and
natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other
main rival in the region, Damascus.
After the devastation caused by eight years of proxy war, the Syrian government is in dire need
of tens of billions dollars international assistance to rebuild the country. Not only is Washington
hampering efforts to provide international aid to the hapless country, it is in fact squatting over
Syria's own resources with the help of its only ally in the region, the Kurds.
Although Donald Trump claimed credit for expropriating Syria's oil wealth, it bears mentioning
that "scorched earth" policy is not a business strategy, it is the institutional logic of the deep
state.
President Trump is known to be a businessman and at least ostensibly follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the craft of international diplomacy, however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and Washington's national security establishment.
Regarding Washington's interest in propping up the Gulf's autocrats and fighting their wars in regional
conflicts, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister
threatened
that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other
assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the
United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack – though the bill was eventually
passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were
Saudi nationals.
Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment
in Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total
would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf's investments in North America and Western Europe.
Furthermore, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf's oil in the energy-starved
industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data:
Saudi Arabia has the world's
largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million
barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million
barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3
million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788
billion barrels, more than half of world's 1477 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military
bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of
1980, which states: "Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United
States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
force."
Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry's sales of arms to the Gulf Arab
States,
a report
authored
by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration
had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during
its eight-year tenure.
Similarly, the top items in Trump's agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were:
firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to counter Iran's influence
in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package
included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales.
Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind,
during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is
not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms
to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar
al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive
policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its
attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term
security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.
Similarly, when King Abdullah's successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad
bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the
dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not
only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars'
worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.
In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab
states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf's petro-sheikhs contribute substantial
investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to the Western economies.
Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary neocolonial order,
according to a January 2017
infographic
by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were stationed all over the world,
including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.
Although Donald Trump keeps complaining that NATO must share the cost of deployment of US troops,
particularly in Europe where 47,000 American troops are stationed in Germany since the end of the Second
World War, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom, fact of the matter is that the cost is
already shared between Washington and host countries.
Roughly, European countries pay one-third of the cost for maintaining US military bases in Europe
whereas Washington chips in the remaining two-third. In the Far Eastern countries, 75% of the cost
for the deployment of American troops is shared by Japan and the remaining 25% by Washington, and in
South Korea, 40% cost is shared by the host country and the US contributes the remaining 60%.
Whereas the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar – pay
two-third of the cost for maintaining 36,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf where more than half of
world's proven oil reserves are located and Washington contributes the remaining one-third.
* * *
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the
politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.
I am always amazed (and amused) at
how much smarter "journalists" are
than POTUS. If ONLY Mr. Trump would
read more and listen to those who
OBVIOUSLY are sooo much smarter!!!!
Maybe then he wouldn't be cowed and
bullied by Erdogan, Xi, Jung-on,
Trudeau (OK so maybe that one was
too far fetched) to name a few.
Please note the sarcasm. Do I really
need to go in to the success after
success Mr. Trump's foreign policy
has enjoyed? Come on Man.
What a load of BOLOCKS...The ONLY, I
mean The Real and True Reason for
American Armored presence is one
thing,,,,,,,Ready for IT ? ? ? To
Steal as much OIL as Possible, AND
convert the Booty into Currency,
Diamonds or some other intrinsically
valuable commodity, Millions of
Dollars at a Time......17 Years of
Shadows and Ghost Trucks and Tankers
Loading and Off-Loading the Black
Gold...this is what its all
about......M-O-N-E-Y....... Say It
With Me.... Mon-nee, Money Money
Mo_on_ne_e_ey, ......
From the sale of US oil in Syria
receive 30 million. dollars per
month. Image losses are immeasurably
greater. The United States put the
United States as a robbery bandit.
This is American democracy. The
longer the troops are in Syria, the
more countries will switch to
settlements in national currencies.
"Our interests", "strategic
interests" is always about money,
just a euphemism so it doesn't
look as greedy as it is. Another
euphemism is "security' ,meaning
war preparations.
...The military power of the USA
put directly in the service of "the
original TM" PIRATE STATE.
U are
the man Norm! But wait... now things
get a little hazy... in the
classic... 'alt0media fake
storyline' fashion!
"President Trump is known to be a
businessman and at least ostensibly
follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the
craft of international diplomacy,
however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and
Washington's national security
establishment."
Awww! Poor "DUmb as Rocks
Donnie" done been fooled agin!
...In the USA... the military men
are stirring at last... having been
made all too aware that their
putative 'boss' has been operating
on behalf of foreign powers ever
since being [s]elected, that the
State Dept of the once Great
Republic has been in active cahoots
with the jihadis ...
and that those who were sent over
there to fight against the
headchoppers discovered that the
only straight shooters in the whole
mess turned out to be the Kurds who
AGENT FRIMpf THREW UNDER THE BUS
ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM JIHADI HQ!
Last, these OT comments are not truly OT. The WTO is being dismantled by Trumpian
nonfeasance in pursuit of the deliberate rejection of the very idea of international
institutions (of imperialism, as I see it, but others don't,) standing above the national
state, immunizing the market against the mistakes of democracy, providing the essential support
to make a world market.
The OP says in the title this is arrogance, presumably as violating economic science. But
all these seeming side issues are about political economy in the end. Trump wants to pretend
the US has been exploited by the old system, and pose as a nationalist. I think he just wants
to rationalize US empire, cutting costs, increasing ROI, etc.
I think Trump is getting support, primarily from the rich; also from middle strata, the kind
of people who put FOX TV on in the waiting rooms of their businesses; AKA from lower strata
led by Christianity to favor any oppressive government that will provide them support for their
efforts to police society; also lower strata ethnic groups who have slowly been turning inwards
to each other as they see a future dog-eat-dog country where the breeds of dogs have to stick
together, or perish.
In short, what the OP sees as arrogant dismissal of science I see as desperation masked with
bravado.
Arguably some of the most significant events since the eight-year long war's start have played out in Syria with rapid pace over
just the last month alone, including Turkey's military incursion in the north, the US pullback from the border and into Syria's oil
fields, the Kurdish-led SDF&# deal making with Damascus, and the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. All of this is why a
televised interview with Presiden39;st Bashar Assad was highly anticipated at the end of this week.
Assad's commentary on the latest White House policy to "secure the oil" in Syria, for which US troops have already been redeployed
to some of the largest oil fields in the Deir Ezzor region, was the biggest pressing question. The Syrian president's response was
unexpected and is now driving headlines, given what he said directly about Trump, calling him the "best American president" ever
– because he's the "most transparent."
"When it comes to Trump you may ask me a question and I'll give you an answer which might seem strange. I tell you he's the best
American president," Assad said, according to a
translation provided by NBC.
"Why? Not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president," Assad continued.
"All American presidents commit crimes and end up taking the Nobel Prize and appear as a defender of human rights and the 'unique'
and 'brilliant' American or Western principles. But all they are is a group of criminals who only represent the interests of the
American lobbies of large corporations in weapons, oil and others," he added.
"Trump speaks with the transparency to say 'We want the oil'." Assad's unique approach to an 'enemy' head of state which has just
ordered the seizure of Syrian national resources also comes after in prior years the US president called Assad "our enemy" and an
"animal."
Trump tweeted in April 2018 after
a new chemical attack allegation had surfaced: "If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster
would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!"
A number of mainstream outlets commenting on Assad's interview falsely presented it as "praise" of Trump or that Assad thinks
"highly" of him; however,
it appears the Syrian leader was merely presenting Trump's policy statements from a 'realist' perspective , contrasting them from
the misleading 'humanitarian' motives typical of Washington's rhetoric about itself.
That is, Damascus sees US actions in the Middle East as motivated fundamentally by naked imperial ambition, a constant prior theme
of Assad's speeches , across administrations, whether US leadership dresses it up as 'democracy promotion' or in humanitarian terms
characteristic of liberal interventionism. As Assad described, Trump seems to skip dressing up his rhetoric in moralistic idealism
altogether, content to just unapologetically admit the ugly reality of US foreign policy.
I see Americans keep calling Assad and Putin a ''dictator'' Hey, jackasses, they were ELECTED in elections far less corrupt than what you have in the USSA
Assad is a very eloquent speaker. Witty, sharp and always calm when speaking with decadent press. Of course the MSM understood
what he DID mean, but they cannot help themselves, but parse anything to try hurting Trump.
If true. It means the Vatican (the oldest most important money there is) like Saudi Arabia and the UAE sure do seem to care
about stuff like purchasing power in their "portfolios" and a "store of value"?...
I see lots of EU participants taking their money to Moscow as well with that Arctic bonanza that says "come hither" if you
want your money to be worth something!!!
It's always been about oil. Spreading Freedumb, Dumbocracy and Western values, is PR spiel. The reality is, the West are scammers,
plunderers and outright thieves. Forget the billions Shell Oil, is holding for the Biafran people/region in Nigeria, which it
won't give to either the Bianfran states in the east, nor the Nigerian government, dating back to the secessionist state of Biafra/Nigerian civil war 1967-70. The west are nothing more than gang-bangers, but on the world stage.
Yet the department for trade and industry is scratching its head, wondering why their are so few takers for a post-Brexit trade
deal with the UK, where the honest UK courts have the final say? lol
Too bad it is political suicide for an American president to try to establish communication with Assad. He seems like a pretty
practical guy and who knows, it might be possible to work out a peaceful settlement with him.
economic warfare on the syrian civlian population through illegal confiscation of vital civilian economic assets, and as conducted
in venezeula, is called ________________
Assad is saying where before the UKK was a masked thief, with Trompas and his egotism alias exceptionalism, has not bothered
withthe mask. He is still a murderer and thief.
Now Assad has some idea why Trump is so popular with his base, they love him for not being politically correct, for "telling
it like it is". He's like the wolf looking at the sheep and telling them he's going to eat them and the sheep cheering because
he's not being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Unfortunately in the case of Trump's sheeple, they don't even have a clue they're going to be eaten, the Trumptards all think
he's going to eat someone else like the "deep state" or the "dumbocrats". Meanwhile he's chewing away at their health care, their
export markets, piling up record deficits, handing the tax gold to the rich and corporations while they get the shaft, taking
away program after program that aided students, the poor, and the elderly, appointing lobbyists to dismantle or corrupt departments
they used to lobby against, and in general destroying the international good will that it's taken decades to build.
"... In excess of 13,000 people, mostly Ukrainians, are known to have died in this war, and some two million have been forced from their homes. The economy of eastern Ukraine has collapsed. Ukraine has suffered through painful economic dislocation and political division. Meanwhile, several hundred Russians are believed to have been killed fighting in the Donbass. Western sanctions have damaged Russia's weak economy. And although the majority of Crimeans probably wanted to join Russia, opposition activists and journalists have been abducted, brutalized, and/or imprisoned. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been closed and Tartars have been persecuted. ..."
"... Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad to escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor. ..."
"... I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil - they didn't. ..."
"... I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique. ..."
"... And as is the case in developing countries, what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot. ..."
"... How the civil unrest spun out of control the second time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement. ..."
Recently Ukraine has been thrown into the spotlight as Democrats gear up to impeach President Donald Trump. More important, though,
is its role in damaging America's relations with Russia, which has resulted in a mini-Cold War that the U.S. needs to end.
Ukraine is in a bad neighborhood. During the 17th century, the country was divided between Poland and Russia, and eventually ended
up as part of the Russian Empire. Kiev then enjoyed only the briefest of liberations after the 1917 Russian Revolution, before being
reabsorbed by the Soviet Union. It later suffered from a devastating famine as Moscow confiscated food and collectivized agriculture.
Ukraine was ravaged during Germany's World War II invasion, and guerrilla resistance to renewed Soviet control continued for years
afterwards.
In 1991, the collapse of the U.S.S.R. gave Ukraine another, more enduring chance for independence. However, the new nation's development
was fraught: GDP dropped by 60 percent and corruption burgeoned. Ukraine suffered under a succession of corrupt, self-serving, and
ineffective leaders, as the U.S., Europe, and Russia battled for influence.
In 2014, Washington and European governments backed a street putsch against the elected, though highly corrupt, pro-Russian president,
Viktor Yanukovych. The Putin government responded by annexing Crimea and backing separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine's Donbass region.
Washington and Brussels imposed economic sanctions on Russia and provided military aid to Kiev.
The West versus Russia quickly became a "frozen" conflict. Moscow reincorporated Crimea into Russia, from which it had been detached
in 1954 as part of internal Soviet politics. In the Donbass, more than a score of ceasefires came and went. Both Ukraine and Russia
failed to fulfill the 2016 Minsk agreements, which sought to end the conflict.
In excess of 13,000 people, mostly Ukrainians, are known to have died in this war, and some two million have been forced from
their homes. The economy of eastern Ukraine has collapsed. Ukraine has suffered through painful economic dislocation and political
division. Meanwhile, several hundred Russians are believed to have been killed fighting in the Donbass. Western sanctions have damaged
Russia's weak economy. And although the majority of Crimeans probably wanted to join Russia, opposition activists and journalists
have been abducted, brutalized, and/or imprisoned. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been closed and Tartars have been persecuted.
The most important geopolitical impact has been to poison Russia's relations with the West. Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine
cannot be justified, but the U.S. and Europe did much to create the underlying suspicion and hostility. Recently declassified documents
reveal the degree to which Western officials misled Moscow about their intention to expand NATO. Allied support for adding Georgia
and Ukraine, which would have greatly expanded Russian vulnerability, generated a particularly strong reaction in Moscow. The dismemberment
of Serbia with no consideration of Russia's interests was another irritant, along with Western support for "color revolutions" elsewhere,
including in Tbilisi. The ouster of Yanukovych finally triggered Putin's brutal response.
Washington and Brussels apparently did not view their policies as threatening to Russia. However, had Moscow ousted an elected
Mexican president friendly to America, while inviting the new government to join the Warsaw Pact, and worked with a coalition of
Central American states to divert Mexican trade from the U.S., officials in Washington would not have been pleased. They certainly
wouldn't have been overly concerned about juridical niceties in responding.
This explains (though does not justify) Russia's hostile response. Subsequent allied policies then turned the breach in relations
into a gulf. The U.S. and European Union imposed a series of economic sanctions. Moreover, Washington edged closer to military confrontation
with its provision of security assistance to Kiev. Moscow responded by challenging America from Syria to Venezuela.
It also began moving towards China. The two nations' differences are many and their relationship is unstable. However, as long
as their antagonism towards Washington exceeds their discomfort with each other, they will cooperate to block what they see as America's
pursuit of global hegemony.
Why is the U.S. entangled in the Ukrainian imbroglio? During the Cold War, Ukraine was one of the fabled "captive nations," backed
by vigorous advocacy from Ukrainian Americans. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they joined other groups lobbying on behalf of ethnic
brethren to speed NATO's expansion eastward. Security policy turned into a matter of ethnic solidarity, to be pursued irrespective
of cost and risk.
To more traditional hawks who are always seeking an enemy, the issue is less pro-Ukraine than anti-Russia. Mitt Romney, the Republican
Party's 2012 presidential nominee, improbably attacked Russia as America's most dangerous adversary. Hence the GOP's counterproductive
determination to bring Kiev into NATO. Originally Washington saw the transatlantic alliance as a means to confront the Soviet menace;
now it views the pact as a form of charity.
After the Soviet collapse, the U.S. pushed NATO eastward into nations that neither mattered strategically nor could be easily
protected, most notably in the Balkans and Baltics. Even worse were Georgia and Ukraine, security black holes that would bring with
them ongoing conflicts with Russia, possibly triggering a larger war between NATO and Moscow.
Ukraine never had been a matter of U.S. security. For most of America's history, the territory was controlled by either the Russian
Empire or the Soviet Union. Washington's Cold War sympathies represented fraternal concerns, not security essentials. Today, without
Kiev's aid, the U.S. and Europe would still have overwhelming conventional forces to be brought into any conflict with Moscow. However,
adding Ukraine to NATO would increase the risk of a confrontation with a nuclear armed power. Russia's limitations when it comes
to its conventional military would make a resort to nuclear weapons more likely in any conflict.
Nevertheless, George W. Bush's aggressively neoconservative administration won backing for Georgian and Ukrainian membership in
NATO and considered intervening militarily in the Russo-Georgian war. However, European nations that feared conflict with Moscow
blocked plans for NATO expansion, which went into cold storage. Although alliance officials still officially backed membership for
Ukraine, it remains unattainable so long as conflict burns hot with Russia.
In the meantime, Washington has treated Ukraine as a de facto military ally, offering economic and security assistance. The U.S.
has provided $1.5 billion for Ukrainian training and weapons, including anti-tank Javelin missiles. Explained Obama administration
defense secretary Ashton Carter: "Ukraine would never be where it is without that support from the United States."
Equally important, the perception of U.S. backing made the Kiev government, headed by President Petro Poroshenko, less willing
to pursue a diplomatic settlement with Russia. Thus did Ukraine, no less than Russia, almost immediately violate the internationally
backed Minsk accord.
Kiev's role as a political football highlights the need for Washington to pursue an enduring political settlement with Russia.
European governments are growing restless; France has taken the lead in seeking better relations with Moscow. Germany is unhappy
with U.S. attempts to block the planned Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky has campaigned
to end the conflict.
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recently met in Minsk to revive the
agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage
of Ukrainian legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong opposition from nationalists,
passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security concerns. The U.S. and its allies should
formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances,
Moscow would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine protects local autonomy while
Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted. Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation,
since the country would likely be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of Crimea
while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object. Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would
double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would
certainly be better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author
of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
I credit Mr. Bandow for his largely fair and accurate description of the events in Ukraine of five years ago, and for his ultimate
policy proposal for the US to extricate itself from its close involvement in the area. However, I'm a little confused by what
exactly the author means by "Moscow's aggressions against Ukraine" and "Putin's brutal response" (aside from the treatment of
dissidents and journalists as he specifically mentioned) to the Maidan Revolution.
Was it aggressive and brutal for Russia to support separatists in the Donbass who were facing the prospect of legal discrimination
and violence by a criminal, neo-fascist government in Kiev, not to mention de-industrialization, the gutting of the agriculture
sector and the forced economic migration of an enormous number of its young workers (assuming that Ukraine's economic deal with
the EU followed the script of every other Easter European's country's deal with the EU)? If Yanukovych had fled to the Donbass
and proclaimed himself still the freely elected (though certainly corrupt) President of the nation, Russia's support for the region
would have even had a shiny brass legal fig leaf, wouldn't it?
As for the supposed "conquest" of Crimea, that's a rather strong word to use considering that all of two members of the Ukrainian
military were killed, and 60-80 of them detained, while 15,000 defected to Russia. Compared to the violence in Kiev and Odessa,
what happened in Crimea almost qualifies as a bloodless coup. But then Mr. Bandow shies away from using the word "hegemony" to
describe the foreign policy of the United States, figuratively putting the word in the mouths of those bad men (which they are)
in Moscow and Beijing. It's a pity that Mr. Bandow felt the need to make linguistic concessions to the foreign policy establishment
in what was otherwise a useful and balanced piece.
Even though the overall idea of ending the sponsoring of the conflict by Washington is plausible there are a number of shortcomings
in the article to put it mildly. I realize though that the author has to make Washington look innocent and Russia look bad to
escape the danger of being stigmatized as a pro-Russian traitor.
I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition
of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously
had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil
- they didn't.
I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history
of unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique.
And as is the case in developing countries, what we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are
conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot.
How the civil unrest spun out of control the second time in ten years, can be linked directly to US and EU involvement.
It is a deeply held belief that democracy is a system that by definition a generally acceptable path forward. That belief is
false as democracy is still comprised of human beings. And democracy in their hands is no "cure all". It can be a turbulent and
jerky bureaucratic maze process that pleases no one and works over time.
The US didn't accomplish it without violence until after more than 130 years, when the native populations were finally subdued.
And as for a system that embodied equal treatment to similar circumstance -- we are still at it. But a violent revolution every
ten years certainly isn't the most effective road to take.
-----------------
Why we insistent on restarting the cold war is unclear to me save that it served to create a kind of strategic global clarity
Though what that means would troublesome because Russia's ole would now be as a developing democratic state as opposed to a communist
monolith. And that means unfettered from her satellites and empowered by more capital markets her role as adversary would be more
adroit. As time after time, Ores Putin has appeared the premier diplomat for peace and stability in situations in which the US
was engaged or encouraging violence.(the Ukraine). I certainly don't think that our relations with Russia or China are a to be
kumbaya love fests, there is still global competition and there's no reason to pretend it would be without tensions. But seriously,
as a democratic/capital market player -- there really was no way to contain Russia.
----------------------
Given what we experienced during 2007 --- corruption comes in a mryiad of guises.
The Ukraine situation is complex to be certain, but ending military aid and letting Russia clean up seems like a bad idea.
This week we saw Russian forces occupy US bases abandoned when Trump ordered our troops to withdraw from the Turkish border.
And now the author is arguing we should do something similar in the Ukraine.
When did Russian appeasement become so important to conservative foreign policy?
Mate, Russians were in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government. US troops are there illegally (no Congress mandate, no
international mandate, no invitation). US is an occupying, destabilizing, terrorist protecting force in Syria and Americans should
look beyond their self esteem before commenting on this "shameful" retreat. US does not have the right to put its troops wherever
it fancies.
This win or loose mentality will be the death of you. Who do you think is threatening the US, when it has the biggest moats
protecting its shores? The only thing that is happening is that the hegemonic role, that of controlling everyone's economy for
its own elites benefit is being denied.
This is what you are complaining mate, the the rich Americans cannot get richer? Do you think they will share with you, or
that, like the good English boys of the past, you will not be able to land a job with East India Co. and despoil the natives for
a while?
If the US were smart then they would lead some sort of negotiation where eastern Europe and Ukraine and Russia were allowed only
mutually agreed defensive weapons systems. A demilitarization of say 200 miles on each side of the Russia border. The strategy
should be to encourage trade between Eastern Europe and Russia where Russia has influence but is not threatening. It may be slow
to build that trust but the real question is whether the US and Europe and NATO want peace with Russia or whether they are using
fear of Russia to keep eastern Europe united with the US and Europe. This may be the case but the future will have China as a
greater threat than Russia (China will even be a threat to Russia). Any shift in Russian relations will take decades of building
trust on both sides.
Good article and excellent history of facts. If I recall during the last Bush administration W hosted a Putin and his then spouse,
at a visit at his ranch. Putin informed W," the Ukraine belongs to Russia. end of sentence.
The author forgot the critical role of Sevastopol in the Crimea. It is Russia's only warm water port and there was no way that
it was going to allow this area to become a NATO naval base. Secretary of State Clinton and her sidekick for Ukraine, Victoria
Nuland should have known this before they started supporting the overthrow of the pro-Russia government in Kiev.
If you look at a historical atlas, you won't find an independent country called Ukraine before 1991. When my parents were born,
near what is now called Lviv, the area was called Galicia and Lemberg was its provincial capital. A gold medal issued in 1916
in honor of Franz Josef's 85th birthday noted that he was the Kaiser of Austria, Hungary, Galicia and Lodomeria.
When the old Soviet Union agreed to allow East and West Germany to reunify, it was with the understanding that NATO would not
extend membership to former Soviet block countries and that there would be no NATO bases in these areas either. NATO and the US
broke their oral commitment to Russia a few years later.
The US should get out of the business of trying to spread democracy in third world countries and interfering in the affairs
of foreign governments. We can't afford to be the policeman of the world. We don't even have the ability to make many of our own
central cities safe for Americans. Think Baltimore, St. Louis, New Orleans and Detroit, all four of which appear on Wikipedia's
list of the 50 murder capitals of the world (per thousand population).
"... If you enjoyed this original article, please consider ..."
"... making a donation ..."
"... to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... Consider Israel's 1967 war for the Golan Heights, WWI partitions of Germany, Spanish American war, What am I missing? ..."
"... "Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations." ..."
"... Clearly, the UN is the arbiter of war crimes but they only ever find small, weak offenders guilty. ..."
"... The powerful countries like the US, Britain and Europe are not even investigated for war crimes let alone prosecuted. War crimes are only war crimes if there is someone there to police, prosecute and punish the offenders. There is no such authority, so reference to war crimes is just self gratification and meaningless. The US doesn't even pretend to adhere to international law. ..."
"... You can't be President of the US without engaging in war crimes. They all serve the military industrial complex. At least Trump does some things right instead of 100% for the elite and their NWO. ..."
"... I agree he's stupid, generally. But it seems pretty rational for any US President to expect he (or she) will never face any consequences for the horrific crimes they commit. ..."
"... The trouble is, angry spittle, that the US will get away with this pillage, as it has done in the past. The only difference between this "prez" and the ones before him is his *boasting* openly, publicly about America's war crimes. ..."
"... The issue of "securing oil" makes a lot if sense in this perspective. Syria is not as utterly miserable as planned, but quite miserable indeed, and delaying her access to her own oil will keep it that way. ..."
What the president advocated was one of the most telling statements of his presidency. It
amounted to an admission that he is perfectly willing to commit a war crime.
P resident Donald Trump on Sunday held a highly unusual press
conference to announce the successful special forces operation the night before that
resulted in the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. When Trump read his prepared
statement and did not walk away from the podium, my first thought was, "Oh, boy. How much
classified information is he going to release now?" My own informed opinion is that he released
a lot, talking about who did the raid, how they did it, where they launched from, what other
countries were involved, and the fact that special forces elements remained on-scene for two
hours to collect documentary intelligence. Often, those kinds of details leak out in the days
and weeks after a raid like this. But they never, ever come from the president himself.
Trump also gloated
inappropriately that Baghdadi "ran whimpering, crying, and screaming all the way" before
detonating a suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children. The whimpering, crying,
and screaming part probably wasn't true. After all, the raid was in the middle of the night and
Baghdadi had fled into a tunnel to try to escape the onslaught. It would have been impossible
to know if he was crying down there. Trump added about Baghdadi, "He died like a dog. He died
like a coward. The world is now a much safer place."
>>Please
Donate to Consortium News' Fall Fund Drive<<
Very few people in the Middle East keep dogs as pets. This was an insult just for the sake
of insult. Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad Baghdadi is dead. He was a coldblooded murderer,
child killer, and terrorist, and the world is a better place without him in it. But the insults
were unnecessary.
President Donald Trump announcing the U.S. killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. (Twitter)
All of that is irrelevant to the story, though. The most interesting part of the president's
press conference was his segue into a non sequitur
about Iraq. Mid way through the press conference a reporter asked Trump about what "brilliant"
people helped in his decision-making process for the operation. Trump's response was one of the
most telling statements of his presidency. Indeed, it was an admission that he is perfectly
willing to commit a war crime, an impeachable offense, as part of his personal ideology. Here's
the exchange :
Reporter: "You -- you mentioned that you had met some -- gotten to know some brilliant
people along this process who -- who had helped provide information and -- and -- and advice
along the way. Is there anyone in particular or would you like to give anyone credit for
getting to this point today?"
Trump: "Well, I -- I would but if I mention one, I have to mention so many. I spoke to
Senator Richard Burr this morning and as you know, he's very involved with intelligence and
the committee. [Note: Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) is the chairman of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence.] And he's a great gentleman. I spoke with Lindsey Graham just a
little while -- in fact, Lindsey Graham is right over here, and he's been very much involved
in this subject and he's -- he's a very strong hawk, but I think Lindsey agrees with what
we're doing now. And again, there are plenty of other countries that can help them patrol. I
don't want to leave 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 soldiers on the border. But where Lindsey and I
totally agree is the oil.
"The oil is, you know, so valuable. For many reasons. It fueled ISIS, number one. Number
two, it helps the Kurds, because it's basically been taken away from the Kurds. They were
able to live with that oil. And number three, it can help us, because we should be able to
take some also. And what I intend to do, perhaps, is make a deal with an ExxonMobil or one of
our great companies to go in there and do it properly. Right now it's not big. It's big oil
underground but it's not big oil up top. Much of the machinery has been shot and dead. It's
been through wars. But -- and -- and spread out the wealth. But no, we're protecting the oil,
we're securing the oil. Now that doesn't mean we don't make a deal at some point.
"But I don't want to be -- they're -- they're fighting for 1,000 years, they're fighting
for centuries. I want to bring our soldiers back home, but I do want to secure the oil. If
you read about the history of Donald Trump, I was a civilian. I had absolutely nothing to do
with going into Iraq and I was totally against it. But I always used to say that if they're
going to go in -- nobody cared that much but it got written about -- if they're going to go
in -- I'm sure you've heard the statement because I made it more than any human being alive.
If they're going into Iraq, keep the oil. They never did. They never did. I know Lindsey
Graham had a bill where basically we would have been paid back for all of the billions of
dollars we've spent."
Pillaging
What Donald Trump is advocating here, in his very Donald Trump kind of way, is "pillaging."
He is advocating taking Iraq's oil by force, ostensibly as payment for our "liberation" of that
country. This is clearly and definitively a war
crime .
International law has long protected property against pillage during armed conflict. The
Lieber Code, a military law from the U.S. civil war, said, "All pillage or sacking, even after
taking place by force, are prohibited under penalty of death, or such other severe punishment
as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense." In The Hague Regulations of 1907, two
provisions stipulate clearly that "the pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault,
is prohibited," and that "pillage is formally forbidden." The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court have both formally reaffirmed that
pillaging a country of its natural resources is illegal and is considered to be a war crime.
It's as simple as that.
It matters not one whit if Lindsey Graham has a bill to take Iraq's oil. It doesn't matter
if Trump thinks we should take the oil as reimbursement for U.S. aggression against that
country. What matters here is the rule of law, and the law is clear. It's bad enough that the
U.S. military is in Syria illegally. (There are only three ways to send troops to a foreign
country legally: If the troops are invited by the country; if the country attacks the United
States; or with the permission of the United Nations Security Council.) Let's not add more
international crimes to the ones we've already committed.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
If you enjoyed this original article, please considermaking a donationto Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like
this one.
Vincent Castigliola , October 30, 2019 at 14:03
We have no right undertaking any military action in Syria or taking or deciding how
Syria's oil should be used. I also respect John K; however, I question his characterization
of taking control of Syrian territory or resources as "pillage".
I would distinguish the literal definition and also ask him to cite a single instance in
which the victor in a war didn't take property fro the loser.
Consider Israel's 1967 war for the Golan Heights, WWI partitions of Germany, Spanish American
war,
What am I missing?
You're missing that the law changed over time and that Israel's pillage of Palestine is an
ongoing legal issue.
1949 4th Geneva Convention, Article 33: "Pillage is prohibited."
Article 53:
"Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging
individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public
authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such
destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."
GMCasey , October 31, 2019 at 11:37
Vincent, I think you missed the pillage of America when the Supreme Court ruled that
corporations are people too.
This has been a "pillage" act from day one The US Congress, never declared a war on
Syria.
GMCasey , October 31, 2019 at 11:57
Vincent, you forgot how America took down the free nation of Hawaii and its queen. Then
there's the Whiskey Rebellion when America was forming that was pretty depressing too as it
let the citizens know that freedom was missing from certain classes. The sadness of America's
continual influence in South America was begun so long ago, and remember, the land on which
Guantanamo is situated does belong to Cuba -- -and then of course, Taft and the Philippines
-- -- – actually, it seems since the beginning of America's time this nation has not
seriously committed to making ,"a more perfect union," for its citizens and the world -- --
–maybe the Climate Crisis will rein us in.
robert e williamson jr , October 30, 2019 at 13:00
RE: my earlier comment!
The US Government has been a thief ever since those who created it started stealing the
North American Continent from the indigenous people who lived here. Never mind the genocide
the white man prosecuted against those people.
We been stealing oil from the middle east ever since the 1950's. Now that the problems
created world wide by the super wealthy elitists, SWETS, greed are coming back to haunt us
has the deep state decided we need to be governed by a dictator or is the dictator the excuse
for the security state to take over the government because a dictator got elected potus?
Vera Gottlieb , October 30, 2019 at 12:56
All one needs to do is study up close a world map, locate all the countries rich in
natural resources and bingo know where the US will meddle next, bring "democracy and human
rights", instigate civil unrest and then intervene. All in a nutshell: stealing.
robert e williamson jr , October 30, 2019 at 12:43
Anyone, the only republicans talking for the last two years, who supports the proposition
that the "Orange Apocalypse " could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it needs
to be in the dock also. . The one thing the security state, deep state, intelligence
community and congress have all trumpeted, pardon the pun, is the U.S. does not support
dictators. Right.
Er, that is dictators anywhere the U.S. security state, deep state, intelligence community
and congress doesn't want them.
The CIA history does support that last statement BTW.
CIA has stellar record of interfering in elections and overthrowing legitimately elected
rulers the globe over. Successful endeavors CIA calls them I believe.
The CIA went against the conventions of democracy by supporting dictators as soon as the
agency was created. See the Dulles Bros. and the United Fruit Company saga. The U.S. foreign
policy has been schizophrenic ever since.
Rob , October 30, 2019 at 12:36
Hey, maybe the pillaging of natural resources acquired by military conquest can be added
to the list of impeachment charges against Trump. That list could stretch across an ocean, if
the Dems include all of Trump's impeachable offenses. Ukrainegate is possibly the least
serious of all.
Michael McNulty , October 30, 2019 at 11:53
If Al Capone was alive today he wouldn't go into organised crime and bribe officials, he'd
go into Wall Street and own them.
Dale , October 30, 2019 at 10:18
Excellent article, John. I will never forget the oil guys gathering in my Bahrain office
with their maps of Iraq's oil fields. I don't think they have yet made their millions, but I
have no doubt they expect they will.
"International law has long protected property against pillage during armed conflict. The
Lieber Code, a military law from the U.S. civil war, said, "All pillage or sacking, even
after taking place by force, are prohibited under penalty of death, or such other severe
punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense." "
As if that was anything new. The USA| pilfered tens of thousands of patents after WW2 fom
Germany – from private companies. The confiscation of German foreign accounts, like in
WW1 the removing of machinery and the dismantling of Factories etc. etc. The USA is no
diffrnet in this aspect than what the Nazis did in the areas they occupied. See:
spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-29194050.html
Michael McNulty , October 30, 2019 at 12:04
Regarding patent theft, I read the two places the Nazis headed for when invading a country
were the Central Bank and the Patent Office. It turns out the pulse engine they used on the
V1 Doodlebug was a design stolen from the Patent Office in Paris. The design was granted a
patent around the end of WWI but it had not been in production because nobody had a practical
use for it. Until the Germans did.
Keith , October 30, 2019 at 09:40
When it is said that "we take the oil," what is meant is that our oligarchs are taking the
oil. "We" are not taking the oil, they are. I wonder if, when the time comes that the means
of production are seized in an uprising in this country if those leading such uprising will
be considered war criminals.
Nathan Mulcahy , October 30, 2019 at 08:02
There is nothing surprising or unusual about Trump saying that he is willing to commit war
crimes. His immediate predecessors (Obama, Bush and Clinton) have all committed war crimes
and all are celebrated widely as great statesmen (one of them recently even as a "peace
expert"). It is just that, unlike his predecessors, Trump does not care about the false
facade.
What is stunning is not Trump's bluntness, but the utter disregard for (international) law
by both political "parties" (I'd rather call them two brands of the same Mafia organization),
our so called "media" (I'd rather call them propaganda arms of the said Mafia organization),
but also of the "intellectuals" of the land, and of course the vast, vast majority of its
citizens. (Of course I exclude the readers of this website, and of similar news media from my
condemnation).
john wilson , October 30, 2019 at 07:02
If plundering the oil was America's only war crime we would think that wasn't so bad. The
war crimes committed by the West are so huge that much of them are never reported. Clearly,
the UN is the arbiter of war crimes but they only ever find small, weak offenders guilty.
The
powerful countries like the US, Britain and Europe are not even investigated for war crimes
let alone prosecuted. War crimes are only war crimes if there is someone there to police,
prosecute and punish the offenders. There is no such authority, so reference to war crimes is
just self gratification and meaningless. The US doesn't even pretend to adhere to
international law.
@ "The war crimes committed by the West are so huge that much of them are never
reported."
I disagree. I think generally they are reported but are not identified as the war crimes
that they are. E.g., the wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan,
etc.
Dao Gen , October 30, 2019 at 02:53
It's unlikely that Trump is sending US troops back into Syria for economic or for
long-term reasons. Oil is just a smokescreen. Probably there are several real reasons:
1. Lindsey Graham is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, so Graham would oversee a
possible Senate trial if the foolish Dems choose to impeach. Right after Trump's recent
pullout, the neocon Graham was furious and said he would support impeachment. Trump needs to
mollify Graham and other neocon Repubs for a while for the sake of his own survival.
2. The DINO lib-neocon Dem leadership, attacked Trump ferociously from the right. And the
Repub leadership in the House all voted with the Dems to censure Trump for his very helpful
pullout. With impeachment likely, Trump can't ignore this situation.
3. The MSM are overwhelmingly neocon about foreign affairs, and they have put out many
stories romanticizing the Kurds, who have actually done a fair amount of ethnic cleansing
against Christians, Sunnis, and various tribal groups, so millions of Americans have been
brainwashed into thinking Trump actually "betrayed" the poor Kurds, whereas it was the
pro-PKK leadership of the Kurds who betrayed ordinary Kurds by not reconciling with Syria
long ago. After all, Trump announced last December that he was soon going to withdraw from
Syria. If the PKK-affiliated leaders had been realistic, there would have been no Turkish
invasion. But the MSM hide this situation, thus putting great pressure on Trump.
4. France and Israel and much of the US security state want to continue to use the Kurds as
tools to balkanize Syria, attack the Syrian government, and block Iran. They are fighting
back hard against Trump.
Ultimately Trump's reasons for staying in Syria are basically kabuki to pacify the neocons
and strengthen his domestic political position. Of course this does not justify his war
crimes. However, US forces are unlikely to stay for a long time in Syria for several reasons,
and when Trump sees a good opening, surely he will try to make another realistic withdrawal
after the impeachment farce has passed. Probably Putin will come up with some kind of
diplomatic solution that will allow the US to save face while withdrawing. The conditions
which will limit US oil banditry in Syria are:
1. After impeachment has passed and after the Syrian government liberates Idlib province, it
will send its military to eastern Syria, and the small US force will be obliged to leave.
Neither Trump nor the Syrians want a war to break out over second-rate oil fields, so
diplomacy will win out.
2. The Kurds normally look down on Arabs and discriminate against them, so there is no way
the Arab tribes now running the Deir Ezzour oil field will allow the Kurds to come in and
take it away from them. Likewise, further to the northeast the Kurds have been pushed out of
several oil fields which they grabbed after Isis forced the Syrian government to leave the
area.
3. Trump's base doesn't at all like this plan to send US troops back into Syria. If Trump
wants to be reelected, he'll be forced to withdraw by late spring of 2020. By then Trump's
base will be more important to him than the DC neocons.
This Great Oil Rustling Expedition is actually the last hurrah for the US in Syria. The US
has definitely lost in Syria, but the neocons are just too stupid, stubborn, narcissistic,
and immature to be able to come out and directly say, "We lost. Let's move on." Instead they
have to grandstand and pretend they are winning until the very last moment. How many more
people will have to die because of the vanity of the neocons and the weakness of Trump? Let
us pray there will not be many.
Dale , October 30, 2019 at 10:15
Can you supply corroboration for your allegations against the Kurds? I went looking and
found an old Telegraph article, which identified a small part of Syria where Kurdish
operations had driven Syrians toward ISIL.
But I also found this:
See: medium.com/@makreyi/have-the-syrian-kurds-committed-ethnic-cleansing-8af3c33abf6c :
"YPG has had its share of faults. Crimes have been committed in regions under their
control. Some members of Syrian Democratic Force (SDF) -- a multi-national force made up of
Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen and other minorities -- have committed violations against civilians.
And those few perpetrators were reprimanded by SDF and YPG. However, by no means have the
Kurds committed ethnic cleansing and forced displacement against any ethnic or religious
group. Despite their faults, the Kurds have considerably done a phenomenon job in protecting
the civilians of all backgrounds."
Trump's no more guilty of war crimes than every President since I've been alive, for 69
years. And even Presidents before then. You can't be President of the US without engaging in
war crimes. They all serve the military industrial complex. At least Trump does some things
right instead of 100% for the elite and their NWO.
dfnslblty , October 30, 2019 at 09:45
¿What?
potus does few things correctly, and economically those things benefit the elite.
Peter , October 29, 2019 at 21:09
Historically, who benefits by emboldening the the fly overs? In show business,
entertainers always starts out by telling their audience how great they are. Essentially,
lodging their tongues up the audience's bum. Trump's got his tongue so far up the fly over's
bums, well, it's just embarrassing really. This is the recipe for popularity. Trump tells
American's just what they want to hear. Exceptionalism on steroids.
angry spittle , October 29, 2019 at 20:46
The stupid idiot announces to the world he is about to commit a war crime. That on top of
his bone headed admissions of several other crimes. The guy is so stupid he probably thinks
Cheerios are donut seeds.
Cambo mambo , October 30, 2019 at 01:14
I agree he's stupid, generally. But it seems pretty rational for any US President to
expect he (or she) will never face any consequences for the horrific crimes they commit.
Are you actually suggesting Trump would ever face justice if he sent ExxonMobil to take
over Syria or Iraqi oil wells, by force? Bush did much, much worse. Obama committed horrible
war crimes. Why would Trump face consequence when they didn't? Believing he would is what's
"stupid", imo.
AnneR , October 30, 2019 at 08:34
The trouble is, angry spittle, that the US will get away with this pillage, as it has done
in the past. The only difference between this "prez" and the ones before him is his
*boasting* openly, publicly about America's war crimes.
Of course, the Strumpet is clueless about such things as the Geneva Convention. Mind you,
even being aware of it doesn't mean that the US president and admin and Pentagon etc will in
fact abide by any of the international laws regarding war. The past 70 years have made that
absolutely clear. And so far as I recall the US has refused to agree to any possibility of
its politicos, military, secret agency folks being tried for war crimes by any international
body. So the whole political, MIC, corporate-capitalist-imperialist set up here feels
completely free to destroy, steal, lay claim to, give away, kill, torture – as it
pleases anywhere it wants, when and how it wants.
The stupidity of Trump may be exaggerated. Keep in mind that he is a businessman who had
his key property bankrupted and survived pretty well. Superficially, bankruptcy is a symptom
of stupidity, but the trick is to make OTHER people to loose money and yet continue in spite
of common wisdom of lost trust etc.
Exhibit one is "insane" endeavor to bring Iran to its knees by unilaterally breaking a
multilateral agreement and imposing sanctions that would be utterly unenforceable because no
serious country would cooperate. Initially that was my thinking, all leaders of major allied
countries were against and promised measures to resist. And "heroically" petitioned to
Washington to be allowed to do so. Washington gave a limited time reprieve and otherwise
refused. So that make them sad, although quickly they focused on other troubles. Trump proved
that Amercan ability to get away with any s t imaginable was greatly underestimated.
Thus Trump's citizenry can rejoice that America proved better than before that it has
unique power to make selected other countries very misreable. Wimps like Obama were dabbling
in that too, but now the lives of Venezuela and Iran are worse than before. Not that allies
and lap dog countries do well, but not as miserable. And leaders from Equador to Lithuania
can be glad that following America is a wise choice, the alternative is worse, even if they
are periodically humiliated.
The issue of "securing oil" makes a lot if sense in this perspective. Syria is not as
utterly miserable as planned, but quite miserable indeed, and delaying her access to her own
oil will keep it that way.
To summarise, "admitting to crimes" is not stupid if you can get away with it. But it is
evil.
JustAMaverick , October 29, 2019 at 20:14
From here on out the rule of law will have very little meaning if any at all
internationally or otherwise. We can't vote our way out and the corporate fascists and the
military industrial machine have assumed virtually total control of everything. They will not
give that power back, nor will they give up one cent of their ill gotten gains without a
fight .a fight they have been preparing for, for almost forty years.
America is truly a Kleptocracy with all the goals and lack of ethics or morals that word
implies. We have let them sow an enormous amount of greed, hate and ignorance while they
lobotomized the citizenry with endless programming and propaganda, and that crop is soon to
be reaped. It will be bad. Really bad Worse, nobody even addresses the real issues let alone
unites to defend themselves.
To my eyes the daylight is almost gone and all I can see in the future is as Orwell put
it: "A boot kicking you in the face forever."
The problem traces back to the conquest of Iraq. The article implicitly assumes the
existence of a sovereign entity named
"Iraq." That is wrong. There is no such entity. There was one up until 2003. Then U.S. imperialism
invaded and destroyed it. Iraq's oil was taken by force right there.
What resulted is an occupation political project in place of the former Iraqi state. Then
the plan went wrong. Iran seized control of the project entity through elections. The first
and second "Iraqi prime ministers" under the conquest represented an Iranian clerical
organization called the Islamic Dawa.
Now, the occupation political entity was granted exclusive control of Iraq's oil revenues
under the terms of the conquest. The U.S. imperialists figured they would remain in control
of the entity, but Iran gained control.
Trump doesn't want to take Iraq's oil away not from Iraq. He wants to take it away from
Iran.
Jimmy Gates , October 29, 2019 at 18:58
Valid call. Include, in the prosecution, all previous executives who are\ were complicit
in these crimes. We all know the Presidents etc, but Congress members should be indicted and
IC members as well.
Nick , October 30, 2019 at 10:25
Don't forget 'journalists'! Bill Kristol and Judith Miller should be in the dock as
well!
lizzie dw , October 29, 2019 at 18:44
I agree totally with this author. Taking Syria's oil is Not A Good Thing. It is blatant
thievery to take something from a sovereign country "because you can", then try to justify it
by some lame statement. What additionally bothers me is that this attitude has been present
in the USA through many administrations. Look at the Ukraine since 2014. Many long time
politicians were involved with getting money from Ukraine – for no reason other than
they were American and in charge. Look at Afghanistan and the poppy fields our soldiers are
guarding for the CIA. Thieves, all of them. Look at Clinton and the Central American drugs
through Mina. We can look at the Turks looting areas of Syria of whole factories(!) while
they were occupying the northeast. What about WWII? Politicians took whatever was not nailed
down from Germany. Stealing the art. Look at Britain only now returning some artifacts they
took out of countries they were administrating decades ago. I am sickened by all of them and
I sure am disgusted with President Trump.
rodney lowery , October 29, 2019 at 18:39
My circle of friends thought Trump's speech and actions were refreshing and perfect to
reduce these terrorist leaders publicly to nothing. You libs just can't get it. Trump is not
going to give respect and dignity to murderers. We take their life and dress them down
publicly, and take away any prestige they may have had towards other terrorists. And since
when do democrats and libs care about war crimes? why don't you go apologize for us.
ML , October 30, 2019 at 09:01
Your lack of respect for decency, decorum, the rule of international law, statesmanship,
diplomacy, etc etc, is simply breathtaking. Many of us here were appalled by Obama's war
crimes too, rodney. And most of us here are not "libs" but free and critically thinking human
beings, well apart from your Team Red/Team Blue baloney dichotomous way of seeing the
U.S.A.'s role in the world. Now, who doesn't "get it?" Why, I'd say that would be you!
With all due respect, sir Since there are a good number of Americans who've swallowed the
obvious psychological warfare "Operation Baghdadi" operation hook, line and sinker, featuring
a President of the United States effectively sharing with the American boys and girls a scary
bedtime story, – and drenched with a very poor actor's "tells" or giveaways – the
more accurate term might be "My circle jerk of friends ". We would strongly suggest sobering
up – before Phase 2 of this extremely dangerous fairy tale commences.
Peace.
Joe , October 29, 2019 at 18:35
Lot of folks were bit premature giving Trump some credit for pulling troops out of Syria.
The MIC waved a dollar sign in front of Trump and showed his true colors once again.
Noah Way , October 29, 2019 at 18:18
Just a continuation of oBOMBa's war crimes .The deep state / shadow government is in control.
Nick , October 30, 2019 at 10:35
Which were a continuation of Bush's war crimes, which were a continuation of Clinton's
which were a continuation of Bush's which were a continuation of Reagan's which were a
continuation of Carter's
Just prior to the R-Party Nominating Convention at Cleveland in July 2016, Pepe
wrote :
"Some powerful, well-connected business interests supporting Trump from New York to the
Midwest have outlined their reasons to me, off the record. The fact that their reasons run
completely opposite to the Beltway consensus speaks volumes."
Yes, I remember this article quite well as should other barflies. As I wrote at the time,
those Pepe cited had their own perverted twist on history and thus incorrect reasons as to
the why of America's decline as this paragraph details:
"Why Russia? ' Because Russia does not rig their currency against us to destroy our
industries, and is therefore a natural ally rather then Germany and Japan, who still rig
their currencies against the United States and have destroyed much of our industrial
power .'" [Italics Original]
The bolded text above is what the businessmen were wrong about, and in a big way. But
Trump's isn't the first time policy was based on misconceptions and incorrect history. Pepe
provides further citations that I'll omit here, although they are important, and just provide
his summation followed by one a bit too important to omit here:
"For these business interests, illegal immigration, rigged currencies, and the
'unnecessary war' against Russia are the biggest issues of the presidential campaign....
"This business crowd is distinctly anti-war: ' When Mr. Trump talks about war having to
have rational profit and loss expectation, he is sounding as a logical businessman .'
They also stress that, ' the war against Russia is also destroying our oil industry
as the US ordered the Gulf States to dump their shut-in oil production capacity on the oil
market to bankrupt Russia .'" [Bolded text my emphasis]
But 3 years later, oil price has yet to really recover to the point where Frackers can
make a profit and their Ponzi Scheme seems about to go bust, which is why we're seeing
something that looks like a shift in Trump's initial plan regarding Syria. And there's still
more that can be gleaned from the article that goes against what was then current policy and
its direction. I think it's now fairly easy to see the reasoning behind Trump's UNGA tirade
aimed at the Globalists while contradicting himself about patriots as he's fighting against
one of the most noted--and demonized--of the planet's patriots--Bashar Hafez al-Assad.
"... But militarism is more than thuggish dictators, predatory weaponry, and steely-eyed troops. There are softer forms of it that are no less significant than the "hard" ones. In fact, in a self-avowed democracy like the United States, such softer forms are often more effective because they seem so much less insidious, so much less dangerous. ..."
"... But who can object to celebrating " hometown heroes " in uniform, as happens regularly at sports events of every sort in twenty-first-century America? Or polite and smiling military recruiters in schools ? Or gung-ho war movies like the latest version of Midway , timed for Veterans Day weekend 2019 and marking America's 1942 naval victory over Japan, when we were not only the good guys but the underdogs? ..."
"... Roughly two-thirds of the federal government's discretionary budget for 2020 will, unbelievably enough, be devoted to the Pentagon and related military functions, with each year's "defense" budget coming ever closer to a trillion dollars ..."
"... The U.S. military remains the most trusted institution in our society, so say 74% of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll. ..."
"... A state of permanent war is considered America's new normal. ..."
"... America's generals continue to be treated, without the slightest irony, as "the adults in the room." ..."
"... The media routinely embraces retired U.S. military officers and uses them as talking heads to explain and promote military action to the American people. ..."
"... America's foreign aid is increasingly military aid. ..."
"... In that context, consider the militarization of the weaponry in those very hands, from .50 caliber sniper rifles to various military-style assault rifles. ..."
"... Paradoxically, even as Americans slaughter each other and themselves in large numbers via mass shootings and suicides (nearly 40,000 gun deaths in 2017 alone), they largely ignore Washington's overseas wars and the continued bombing of numerous countries. ..."
"... 9. Even as Americans "support our troops" and celebrate them as "heroes," the military itself has taken on a new " warrior ethos " that would once -- in the age of a draft army -- have been contrary to this country's citizen-soldier tradition , especially as articulated and exhibited by the "greatest generation" during World War II. ..."
"... Democracy shouldn't be about celebrating overlords in uniform. A now-widely accepted belief is that America is more divided, more partisan than ever, approaching perhaps a new civil war , as echoed in the rhetoric of our current president. Small wonder that inflammatory rhetoric is thriving and the list of this country's enemies lengthening when Americans themselves have so softly yet fervently embraced militarism. ..."
Killing Me Softly with Militarism - The Decay of Democracy in America
When Americans think of
militarism
,
they may imagine jackbooted soldiers goose-stepping through the streets as flag-waving crowds exult
;
or, like
our
president
, they may think of enormous parades featuring troops and missiles and tanks, with
warplanes soaring overhead. Or nationalist dictators wearing military uniforms
encrusted
with
medals, ribbons, and badges like so many barnacles on a sinking ship of state. (Was Donald
Trump
only
joking
recently when he said he'd like to award himself a Medal of Honor?)
And what
they may also think is: that's not us. That's not America. After all, Lady Liberty used to welcome
newcomers with a torch, not an
AR-15
.
We don't
wall
ourselves
in while
bombing others
in
distant parts of the world, right?
But militarism is more than thuggish dictators, predatory weaponry, and steely-eyed
troops. There are softer forms of it that are no less significant than the "hard" ones.
In
fact, in a self-avowed democracy like the United States, such softer forms are often more effective
because they seem so much less insidious, so much less dangerous. Even in the heartland of Trump's
famed base, most Americans
continue
to reject
nakedly bellicose displays like phalanxes of tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue.
But who can object to celebrating "
hometown
heroes
" in uniform, as happens regularly at sports events of every sort in twenty-first-century
America? Or polite and smiling military recruiters
in
schools
? Or gung-ho war movies like the latest version of
Midway
, timed for Veterans
Day weekend 2019 and marking America's 1942 naval victory over Japan, when we were not only the
good guys but the underdogs?
What do I mean by softer forms of militarism?
I'm a football fan, so one recent
Sunday afternoon found me watching an NFL game on CBS. People deplore violence in such games, and
rightly so, given the number of injuries among the players, notably concussions that debilitate
lives. But what about
violent
commercials
during the game? In that one afternoon, I noted repetitive commercials for
SEAL
Team
,
SWAT
, and
FBI
,
all CBS shows from this quietly militarized American moment of ours. In other words, I was exposed
to lots of guns, explosions, fisticuffs, and the like, but more than anything I was given glimpses
of hard men (and a woman or two) in uniform who have the very answers we need and, like the
Pentagon-supplied
police
in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, are armed to the teeth. ("Models with guns," my wife
calls them.)
Got a situation in Nowhere-stan? Send in the Navy SEALs. Got a murderer on the loose? Send in
the SWAT team. With their superior weaponry and can-do spirit, Special Forces of every sort are
sure to win the day (except, of course, when they don't, as in America's current series of
never-ending
wars
in distant lands).
And it hardly ends with those three shows.
Consider, for example, this
century's update of
Magnum P.I.
, a CBS
show featuring a kickass private investigator. In the original
Magnum
P.I.
that I watched as a teenager, Tom Selleck played the character with an easy charm.
Magnum's military background in Vietnam was acknowledged but not hyped. Unsurprisingly, today's
Magnum is proudly billed as an ex-Navy SEAL.
Cop and military
shows are nothing new on American TV, but never have I seen so many of them,
new and old, and so well-armed.
On CBS alone you can add to the mix
Hawaii
Five-O
(yet more models with guns updated and up-armed from my youthful years), the three
NCIS
(Naval
Criminal Investigative Service) shows, and
Blue
Bloods
(ironically starring a more grizzled and less charming Tom Selleck) -- and who
knows what I haven't noticed? While today's cop/military shows feature far more diversity with
respect to gender, ethnicity, and race compared to hoary classics like
Dragnet
,
they also feature far more gunplay and other forms of bloody violence.
Look, as a veteran, I have nothing against realistic shows on the military. Coming from a family
of first responders -- I count four firefighters and two police officers in my immediate family --
I loved shows like
Adam-12
and
Emergency!
in
my youth. What I'm against is the strange militarization of everything, including, for instance,
the idea, distinctly of our moment, that first responders need their very own version of the
American flag to mark their service. Perhaps you've seen those
thin
blue line
flags, sometimes augmented with a red line for firefighters. As a military veteran,
my gut tells me that there should only be one American flag and it should be good enough for all
Americans. Think of the proliferation of flags as another soft type of up-armoring (this time of
patriotism).
Speaking of which, whatever happened to
Dragnet
's Sergeant Joe Friday, on the
beat, serving his fellow citizens, and pursuing law enforcement as a calling?
He didn't
need a thin blue line battle flag. And in the rare times when he wielded a gun, it was .38 Special.
Today's version of Joe looks a lot more like G.I. Joe, decked out in body armor and carrying an
assault rifle as he exits a tank-like vehicle, maybe even a
surplus
MRAP
from America's
failed
imperial
wars.
Militarism in the USA
Besides TV shows, movies, and commercials, there are many signs of the increasing embrace of
militarized values and attitudes in this country. The result: the acceptance of a military in
places where it
shouldn't be
, one that's
over-celebrated,
over-hyped
,
and given
far too much
money and cultural
authority, while becoming
virtually immune
to
serious criticism.
Let me offer just nine signs of this that would have been so much less conceivable when
I was a young boy watching reruns of
Dragnet
:
1. Roughly
two-thirds
of
the federal government's discretionary budget for 2020 will, unbelievably enough, be devoted to
the Pentagon and related military functions, with each year's "defense" budget coming ever
closer to a
trillion
dollars
. Such colossal sums are rarely debated in Congress; indeed, they enjoy wide
bipartisan support.
2. The U.S. military remains the
most
trusted
institution in our society, so say 74% of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll. No
other institution even comes close, certainly not the presidency (37%) or Congress (which
recently rose to a monumental
25%
on
an impeachment high). Yet that same military has produced disasters or quagmires in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere. Various "surges" have repeatedly failed. The
Pentagon itself can't even pass
an
audit
. Why so much trust?
3. A state of permanent war is considered America's new normal. Wars are now automatically
treated as multi-generational with little concern for how
permawar
might
degrade our democracy. Anti-war protesters are rare enough to be
lone
voices
crying in the wilderness.
4. America's generals continue to be treated, without the slightest irony, as "the adults in
the room." Sages like former Secretary of Defense
James
Mattis
(
cited
glowingly
in the recent debate among 12 Democratic presidential hopefuls) will
save
America
from unskilled and tempestuous politicians like one Donald J. Trump. In the 2016
presidential race, it seemed that neither candidate could run without being endorsed by a
screaming general (
Michael
Flynn
for Trump;
John
Allen
for Clinton).
5. The media routinely embraces retired U.S. military officers and uses them as
talking
heads
to explain and promote military action to the American people. Simultaneously, when
the military goes to war, civilian journalists are "embedded" within those forces and so are
dependent on them in every way. The result tends to be a cheerleading media that supports the
military in the name of patriotism -- as well as higher ratings and corporate profits.
6. America's foreign aid is increasingly military aid. Consider, for instance, the current
controversy over the aid to Ukraine that President Trump blocked before his infamous phone call,
which was, of course,
partially
about weaponry
. This should serve to remind us that the United States has become the
world's
foremost
merchant of death, selling far more weapons globally than any other country. Again,
there is no real debate here about the morality of profiting from such massive sales, whether
abroad
($55.4
billion in arms sales for this fiscal year alone, says the Defense Security Cooperation Agency)
or
at home
(a
staggering 150 million new guns produced in the USA since 1986, the vast majority remaining in
American hands).
7. In that context, consider the militarization of the weaponry in those very hands, from .50
caliber
sniper rifles
to
various military-style assault rifles. Roughly
15
million
AR-15s are currently owned by ordinary Americans. We're talking about a gun designed
for battlefield-style rapid shooting and maximum damage against humans. In the 1970s, when I was
a teenager, the hunters in my family had bolt-action rifles for deer hunting, shotguns for
birds, and pistols for home defense and plinking. No one had a military-style assault rifle
because no one needed one or even wanted one. Now, worried suburbanites buy them, thinking
they're getting their "
man
card
" back by toting such a weapon of mass destruction.
8. Paradoxically, even as Americans slaughter each other and themselves in large numbers via
mass shootings and suicides (nearly 40,000
gun
deaths
in 2017 alone), they largely ignore Washington's overseas wars and the
continued
bombing
of numerous countries. But ignorance is not bliss. By tacitly giving the military a
blank check, issued in the name of securing the homeland, Americans embrace that military,
however loosely, and its misuse of violence across significant parts of the planet. Should it be
any surprise that a country that kills so wantonly overseas over such a prolonged period would
also experience mass shootings and other forms of violence at home?
9. Even as Americans "support our troops" and celebrate them as "heroes," the military itself
has taken on a new "
warrior
ethos
" that would once -- in the age of a draft army -- have been contrary to this
country's
citizen-soldier tradition
,
especially as articulated and exhibited by the "greatest generation" during World War II.
What these nine items add up to is a paradigm shift as well as a change in the
zeitgeist. The U.S. military is no longer a tool that a democracy funds and uses reluctantly. It's
become an alleged force for good, a virtuous entity, a band of brothers (and sisters), America's
foremost missionaries overseas and most lovable and admired heroes at home.
This embrace
of the military is precisely what I would call soft militarism. Jackbooted troops may not be
marching in our streets, but they increasingly seem to be marching unopposed through -- and
occupying
--
our minds.
The Decay of Democracy
As Americans embrace the military, less violent policy options are downplayed or
disregarded.
Consider the State Department, America's diplomatic corps, now a
tiny
,
increasingly
defunded
branch
of the Pentagon led by Mike Pompeo (celebrated by Donald Trump as a tremendous leader because he
did
well
at West Point). Consider President Trump as well, who's been labeled an isolationist, and
his
stunning
inability
to truly withdraw troops or end wars. In Syria, U.S. troops were recently redeployed,
not withdrawn, not from the region anyway, even as
more
troops
are being sent to Saudi Arabia. In Afghanistan, Trump sent a few thousand more troops in
2017, his own modest version of a mini-surge and they're still there, even as peace negotiations
with the Taliban have been abandoned. That decision, in turn, led to a new surge (a "
near
record high
") in U.S. bombing in that country in September, naturally in the name of advancing
peace.
The result: yet higher levels of
civilian
deaths
.
How did the U.S. increasingly come to reject diplomacy and democracy for militarism and
proto-autocracy?
Partly, I think, because of the absence of a military draft. Precisely
because military service is voluntary, it can be valorized. It can be elevated as a calling that's
uniquely heroic and sacrificial. Even though most troops are drawn from the working class and
volunteer for diverse reasons, their motivations and their imperfections can be ignored as
politicians praise them to the rooftops. Related to this is the Rambo-like cult of the warrior and
warrior
ethos
, now celebrated as something desirable in America. Such an ethos fits seamlessly with
America's generational wars. Unlike conflicted draftees, warriors exist solely to wage war. They
are less likely to have the questioning attitude of the citizen-soldier.
Don't get me wrong: reviving the draft isn't the solution; reviving democracy is.
We need the active involvement of informed citizens, especially resistance to
endless
wars
and
budget-busting
spending
on American weapons of mass destruction. The true cost of our previously soft (now
possibly hardening) militarism isn't seen only in this country's quickening march toward a
militarized authoritarianism. It can also be measured in the dead and wounded from our wars,
including the
dead, wounded
, and
displaced
in
distant lands. It can be seen as well in the rise of increasingly well-armed, self-avowed
nationalists domestically who promise solutions via walls and weapons and "good guys" with guns.
("Shoot them in the legs," Trump is
alleged
to
have said about immigrants crossing America's southern border illegally.)
Democracy shouldn't be about celebrating overlords in uniform.
A now-widely
accepted belief is that America is more divided, more partisan than ever, approaching perhaps a
new
civil
war
, as echoed in the rhetoric of our current president. Small wonder that inflammatory
rhetoric is thriving and the list of this country's enemies lengthening when
Americans
themselves have so softly yet fervently embraced militarism.
With apologies to the great
Roberta Flack
,
America is killing itself softly with war songs.
"Police who deployed explosives and armored vehicles to flush
out a man –who'd stolen two belts and a shirt from a Greenwood
Village Walmart– from the house of Leo and Alfonsia Lech, are
not required to compensate the couple for destroying their
home, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled
on
Tuesday."
Those police destroyed a house worth well over 200K since
it's in metro Denver...and all to apprehend a punk that
shoplifted less than $100 of merchandise...something
terribly wrong, all the govt units, local on up are high on
the arrogance of power with impunity.
In addition to the fired Shokin's claim that President Poroshenko warned him not to
investigate Burisma because it was not in the Bidens' interest, the notes say, the prosecutor
also said he "was warned to stop" by the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt .
The State Department declined to explain this assertion about Pyatt, who was ambassador to
Ukraine from 2013 to 2016 and now is Ambassador to Greece. The Biden presidential campaign did
not respond to a request for comment.
Recounting Shokin's version of events, the notes say he "was called into Mr. Poroshenko's
office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter
Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to
Ukraine." Poroshenko later told Shokin that "he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was
being withheld by Joe Biden," the Giuliani interview notes say.
Trump has claimed that Vice
President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin because he was investigating
his son's employer.
"I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really
unfair," the president said, referring to Shokin in his July 25 phone call with Ukraine's
president, Volodymyr Zelensky. That call triggered the current impeachment crisis after a CIA
whistleblower alleged that Trump had pressured the Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden in
return for military aid.
A Politico
investigation in 2017 found that officials in Poroshenko's government helped Hillary
Clinton allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, notably Paul Manafort,
who before joining the Trump campaign was a political consultant for ousted Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych.
Poroshenko's administration insisted at the time that Ukraine stayed neutral in the
race.
Following a short artillery and air engagement with Syria over raids by exiled Palestinian
guerillas, Egypt mobilized against her nemesis in 1967. President Nasser sent six divisions to
the Sinai, removed the UN peacekeeping force, and closed the Straits of Tiran south of Israel.
Israel struck first, fearing annihilation.
As Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld states in
The Transformation of War , "for six glorious days war was Israel and Israel was war."
The result was a smashing victory for the Israelis
, who lost around 800 soldiers, as opposed to 20,000 for Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The Sinai
peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights were added to
Israel's territory.
Compare this short war with another conflict that played out in 2006. For 34 days, Israel
battled Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in response to the Shia terrorist group's killing and
capturing of several Israeli soldiers in cross-border raids. Israel launched a massive air and
artillery campaign, followed by a ground invasion in late July. When the ceasefire was signed
on August 14, both sides claimed victory, but as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt noted in
The Israel Lobbyand U.S. Foreign
Policy , "it was clear to most independent experts" that "Hezbollah had come out ahead
in the fight." The IDF chief of staff resigned, and an Israeli government investigation rebuked
the planning and handling of the campaign, stating that the military had "pursued goals that
were not clear and could not be achieved."
Worse still, the air, artillery, and naval campaign killed an estimated 1,183 Lebanese (a
third of them children) and devastated the country's infrastructure. These actions drew strong
condemnation from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for causing "destruction on a
catastrophic scale." During the last three days of the war, the IDF fired over one million
cluster bombs into southern Lebanon, "saturating the area." The leader of an IDF rocket unit called these actions
"insane and monstrous."
War can still be won by being nasty and short, as shown in the first Gulf War, but time is
not on the side of the powerful. Escalation by a powerful state against a poorly equipped
adversary almost always works to the advantage of the weaker side. Van Creveld compares this
situation to an adult who "administers a prolonged, violent beating to a child in a public
place." Observers will sympathize with the child and intervene, regardless of its prior
behavior.
With the Palestinians, the position of weakness is even more extreme. Israel dominates the
lives of 3.8 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, controlling air, land, and sea
access, in a situation that's been compared to "living in a cage" by Swedish foreign minister
Jan Eliasson. Despite numerous American attempts to secure Palestinian statehood and resolve
the conflict, the present situation seems worse than ever.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, has made it clear that Israel will be supported
through thick and thin. And the world has slowly but surely begun to take notice. The
BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction), initially confined to college campuses and
Palestine, spilled into the national news when Democratic lawmakers Ilhan Omar and Rashida
Talib spearheaded a movement opposing bills aimed at criminalizing support of BDS. Some
Republicans, namely Senator Rand Paul, have opposed those bills, too, on
free speech grounds.
Recently, after the congresswomen were denied entry to Israel because of their support of
BDS, liberal Jewish journalist Peter Beinart defended their stance. Speaking on a CNN panel , he openly
sympathized with the plight of the Palestinians, claiming their treatment by Israel constitutes
an "indefensible denial of basic human rights." Fellow panelists attempted to tie support for
Palestine to terrorism, a common tactic. But terrorism in that part of the world is nothing
new. Israel's defenders tend to forget or are ignorant of the fact that beginning in 1937, the
militant Zionist group Irgun
was responsible for placing bombs in buses and large crowds. One of its leaders during Israel's
war for independence, future prime minister Menachem Begin, was referred to by Prime Minister
Levi Eshkol simply as "the terrorist."
Modern Israel is no longer a weak state in danger of annihilation. The IDF is highly
motivated, trained, and funded. Emboldened by the financial and moral backing of the United
States and powerful lobbying groups, its treatment of Palestinians and other enemies has become
steadily more severe.
With recent
elections still contested , it remains to be seen whether these policies will continue. But
militarily, Israel's position is not tenable. You can win at the tactical level and rack up a
higher body count, but still lose the war. As frequent TAC contributor and military historian
William S. Lind notes, "in the 3,000 years that the story of David and Goliath has been told,
how many listeners have identified with Goliath?"
Israel will last as long as Wash. extorts money from our wages and supports it. Without the
US taxpayer, Israel wouldn't exist, both from its beginning to right now.
I think the lack of sympathy for Israel is not that it s the "Goliath" of this story but
that it is allowing settlers to live in the Occupied Territories.
So TAC is standing with the Palestinians now I see. Will it stand with those other Davids,
the intersectional allies of the BDS crowd too? namely Black Lives Matter, illegal Latino
migrants, the LGBTQ+ community, and other assorted SJW types?
We are now in the end times; when it comes to Israel, all is in the hands of the Lord. As
the nations of the earth seek to attack and destroy Israel, they fall into ruin: look at
the entire Muslim world; look at what's happening to Europe. Most of all, look at the
astonishing rise and continued power of Donald Trump, the man who recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel. Pick your side and accept your fate accordingly.
"Escalation by a powerful state against a poorly equipped adversary almost always
works to the advantage of the weaker side."
I don't always buy this. For me this only works if the powerful state is in the wrong.
And sadly, in this situation, Israel is deeply in the wrong.
But what does happen is over time, the weak becomes slowly stronger. Because they are
always studying their enemies. They are learning their tactics and how to defeat them. This
may take decades, but eventually the weak become the strong.
This is why it is always best to quickly offer a hand of friendship to a vanquished
enemy. If you don't, you'll eventually trade places.
The author seems to be writing an interesting fiction, reminds one of a Hollywood movie
about a Russian oligarch at the behest of a senior Russian government official, attempting
to engineer wall street crash.
Taking out a newspaper advertisement with proper representation to state one's case can't
be compared with the US funded National Endowment for Democracy's funding of Hong Kong's
increasingly violent rioting.
This is like apple and orange, not comparable. China did not interfere in
NBA's affairs, just reacting to her citizens uproar against the infamous now
deleted tweet. Thus many Chinese Chinese sponsors pulled out. This is no
different to sponsors pulling out of US athletes endorsements from time to
time when there are scandals.
Whereas NED is US intelligence cover for interference in targeted countries
like Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran and many Islamic countries around the world, to
advance US political agenda.
And in breaking news. 39 Britons have been found dead in a container
trying to be smuggled fromt eh failed UK state to the successful state
run by the CCP.
Did I get that the right-way round ?
This is a paper or news site about asia. It is written in English? What does this tell
you? The audience ostensibly consists of westerners (or educated people from asia or
elsewhere) who want to read an alternative to the drivel and rubbish that's propagated in
copious quantities by the scat factories of the west and their zionist-oligarch dominated
news conglomerates...
Who is interfering in elections? Does china name some loser guaido as president of
venezuela or support terrorists in syria? Is china sanctioning (with financial warfare)the
whole world including their own allies? You must have no modicum of shame to come up with
this absolute smorgasbord of rancid festering bollocks that you think is befitting of
"reporting." You are bettet off taking a sabbatical and never coming back... i would tell
you all of this to your face with the utmost respect that i could muster before i
vomited...
Presidents come and go... the empire, deep state bureaucrats, and their slavish
dual-state minions such as yourself will march on no matter what until your rotten seed
perpetuate the corruption and degeneracy passed down through your genes. That xyz is
president makes zero difference in deterring the momentum of evil that lurks within the
diseased sociopaths such as yourself.
You are an unmitigated disgrace to true journalism and do a grave disservice to this
site's reputation.
CIA uses fake identities for the propaganda articles. If a nation is building close
ties with China, automatically an author with a name from that nation appears. They
also have groups posting propaganda under a single fake name. There are only a few
genuine Asian CIA hacks making a living off the CIA.
USA is heading for multiple
recessions possibly a depression unless they change their current anti China
policies.
In fact, in military, fake identities for information warfare are assigned to
one person, so that it multiplies the effect. To keep track of these
"personas" per each real person, and their postings -- a "persona" data bases
are needed to keep track of their activities. And unfortunately , there are
always some technicians who are more then happy to talk about it.
It would not surprise me if he worked for the CIA... this organization is, by
its mission, embedded into all public spheres...
What is worrisome is that
the cia has no accountability to anyone. It is one great example of deep state
operator. Also, cia is heavily infiltrated by mossad. In other words, cia is a
parallel drug traffickers organization that dabbles in news, democracy
promotion, torture, coups, blackmail, assasibation, rendition...
It is accountable to no one ... their actions are conducted in secrecy and
cannot be scrutinized... the president can't control them... these
organizations are a manifest example of why this article is a huge fallacy
dressed up in cured excrement.
These people are outrageously shameless in their assertion that they can openly interfere
in the internal affairs of other countries, like the recent bills passed by the US House
of Representatives in support of the Blackshirts of HK, but they would not brook any
interference from China in their election, not that it's true at all.
This is a good example of how the US apply its Orwellian ideology of "American
Exceptionalism" - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -
George Orwell's "Animal Farm."
Another guy cashing in on the evil China fad, pathetic. It is the US who conducts
financial warfare by imposing illegal sanctions and restrictions on other countries using
the dominance of the dollar in international trade.
If it is so easy to have a country's financial system snd stock markets manipulated -- how
do know that our own financial sharks are not already manipulating market to enrich them
selves , while making it appear that everything is fine? Or that they are not crashing
markets in order to profit?
There is something not right about a country with financial and market systems living off
the fumes of news cycle?
Look at how many times West attacked Russian financial systems
and markets, blocking whole companies and financial institutions -- yet nothing crashed.
Currency lost some value helping exports, while those earning in dollars simply had more
money to spend domestically. And by placing sanctions kn European food products -- they
shot up to the first place globally in wheat production.
I am wondering if the difference is Russia's large currency and gold reserves. As
opposed US economy that sits atop a large debt bubble? Than anything can spook it.
Bill Gertz is running out of stuff to bad mouth China. He is eager to make some money now
that he's been fired by Washington Free Beacon for having some shady deals with the
Chinese billionaire fugitive Guo who is the subject covered in his reporting.
Maybe Gertz can tell us who China wants to be elected by staging these financial influence
campaign? Gertz is sounding utterly ridiculous now.
american are losers, foreign influence here and there, well thanks to your own foreign
policies bombing here and there and regime change everywhere, you sow what you get. if you
don't want foreign influence. just build a great wall and extend it to these. not only no
5G, ditch all comunications including mail
This is a nonsense article. Lots of hypotheticals with no proof presented of China's
intention or cases of actually trying to influence any American election.
This is more
how Western countries behave with their Machivellian modus operandi overthrowing
governments in Eastern Europe, Latin America, etc. This author and American officials are
merely voicing what the USA is already capable of doing rather than what China has in
place.
In fact there is a debate among Chinese officials and think tanks that they might want
Trump to have a second term because as the USA p@sses off many countries including those
allied with the USA that might help China down the line.
Wait a minute -- Russia wants Trump to be reelected, and China wants him to lose?
With US creating legislation for the whole world -- our sanctions whose enforcement is
imposed in others -- means that other people must have the right to elect the president?
How can the world accept such financial burden on others with no right to vote.
Remember
America next time you vote for sanctions, tariffs etc. -- no taxation without
representation.
Global presidents must be elected globally!
There's no need for the Chinese to rely on 'covert' operation to influence the election's
outcome. For instance, if China just cancels the buying of the agricultural goods from the
US that it has dealt with Trump in what is being called the partial deal from the trade
war, it would be already enough to influence in the election. Lol!
"... The brother of the current Chilean president, scions of one of the richest families in Chile, became famous for introducing, as Minister of Labor and Social Security under Pinochet, a funded system of pensions where employees make compulsory contributions from their wages into one of several pension funds, and after retirement receive pensions based on investment performance of such funds. Old-age pensions thus became a part of roulette capitalism. But In the process, the pension funds, charging often exorbitant fees, and their managers became rich. ..."
"... José Piñera had tried to "sell" this model to Yeltsin's Russia and to George Bush's United States, but, despite the strong (and quite understandable) support of the financial communities in both countries, he failed. Nowadays, most Chilean pensioners receive $200-$300 per month in a country whose price level (according to International Comparison Project, a worldwide UN- and World Bank-led project to compare price levels around the world) is about 80% of that of the United States. ..."
"... the combined wealth of Chilean billionaires' (there were twelve of them) was equal to 25% of Chilean GDP. The next Latin American countries with highest wealth concentrations are Mexico and Peru where the wealth share of billionaires is about half (13 percent of GDP) of Chile's. But even better: Chile is the country where billionaires' share, in terms of GDP, is the highest in the world (if we exclude countries like Lebanon and Cyprus) where many foreign billionaires simply "park" their wealth for tax reasons. The wealth of Chile's billionaires, compared to their country's GDP, exceeds even that of Russians. [Graph] ..."
"... Such extraordinary inequality of wealth and income, combined with full marketization of many social services (water, electricity etc.), and pensions that depend on the vagaries of the stock market has long been "hidden" from foreign observers by Chile's success in raising its GDP per capita. ..."
"... if there Is no social justice and minimum of social cohesion, the effects of growth will dissolve in grief, demonstrations, and yes, in the shooting of people. ..."
Chile: The poster boy of neoliberalism who fell from grace
It is not common for an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development county to
shoot and kill 16 people in two days of socially motivated riots. (Perhaps only Turkey, in
its unending wars against the Kurdish guerrilla, comes close to that level of violence.) This
is however what Chilean government, the poster child of neoliberalism and transition to
democracy, did last week in the beginning of protests that do not show the signs of subsiding
despite cosmetic reforms proposed by President Sebastian Piñera.
The fall from grace of Chile is symptomatic of worldwide trends that reveal the damages
causes by neoliberal policies over the past thirty years, from privatizations in Eastern
Europe and Russia to the global financial crisis to the Euro-related austerity. Chile was
held, not the least thanks to favorable press that it enjoyed, as a exemplar of success.
Harsh policies introduced after the overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973, and the murderous
spree that ensued afterwards, have been softened by the transition to democracy but their
essential features were preserved. Chile indeed had a remarkably good record of growth, and
while in the 1960-70s it was in the middle of the Latin American league by GDP per capita, it
is now the richest Latin American country. It was of course helped too by high prices for its
main export commodity, copper, but the success in growth is incontestable. Chile was
"rewarded" by the membership in the OECD, a club of the rich nations, the first South
American country to accede to it.
Where the country failed is in its social policies which somewhat bizarrely were
considered by many to have been successful too. In the 1980s-90s, the World Bank hailed
Chilean "flexible" labor policies which consisted of breaking up the unions and imposing a
model of branch-level negotiations between employers and workers rather than allowing an
overall umbrella union organization to negotiate for all workers. It was even more bizarrely
used by the World Bank as a model of transparency and good governance, something that the
transition countries in Eastern Europe should have presumably copied from Chile. The
brother of the current Chilean president, scions of one of the richest families in Chile,
became famous for introducing, as Minister of Labor and Social Security under Pinochet, a
funded system of pensions where employees make compulsory contributions from their wages into
one of several pension funds, and after retirement receive pensions based on investment
performance of such funds. Old-age pensions thus became a part of roulette capitalism. But In
the process, the pension funds, charging often exorbitant fees, and their managers became
rich.
José Piñera had tried to "sell" this model to Yeltsin's Russia and to
George Bush's United States, but, despite the strong (and quite understandable) support of
the financial communities in both countries, he failed. Nowadays, most Chilean pensioners
receive $200-$300 per month in a country whose price level (according to International
Comparison Project, a worldwide UN- and World Bank-led project to compare price levels around
the world) is about 80% of that of the United States.
While Chile leads Latin America in GDP per capita, it also leads it terms of inequality.
In 2015, its level of income inequality was higher than in any other Latin American country
except for Colombia and Honduras. It exceeded even Brazil's proverbially high inequality. The
bottom 5% of the Chilean population have an income level that is about the same as that of
the bottom 5% in Mongolia. The top 2% enjoy the income level equivalent to that of the top 2%
in Germany. Dortmund and poor suburbs of Ulan Bataar were thus brought together.
Chilean income distribution is extremely unequal. But even more so is its wealth
distribution. There, Chile is an outlier even compared to the rest of Latin America.
According to the Forbes' 2014 data on world billionaires, the combined wealth of Chilean
billionaires' (there were twelve of them) was equal to 25% of Chilean GDP. The next Latin
American countries with highest wealth concentrations are Mexico and Peru where the wealth
share of billionaires is about half (13 percent of GDP) of Chile's. But even better: Chile is
the country where billionaires' share, in terms of GDP, is the highest in the world (if we
exclude countries like Lebanon and Cyprus) where many foreign billionaires simply "park"
their wealth for tax reasons. The wealth of Chile's billionaires, compared to their country's
GDP, exceeds even that of Russians.
[Graph]
Such extraordinary inequality of wealth and income, combined with full marketization of
many social services (water, electricity etc.), and pensions that depend on the vagaries of
the stock market has long been "hidden" from foreign observers by Chile's success in raising
its GDP per capita.
But the recent protests show that the latter is not enough. Growth is
indispensable for economic success and reduction in poverty. But it is not enough: if there
Is no social justice and minimum of social cohesion, the effects of growth will dissolve in
grief, demonstrations, and yes, in the shooting of people.
MOSCOW, October 26, 2019 – RIA Novosti – The Russian Ministry of Defense has
published satellite intelligence images , showing American oil smuggling from Syria.
Image 1: Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic as of October 26, 2019.
According to the ministry, the photos confirm that "Syrian oil, both before and after the
routing defeat of the Islamic State terrorists in land beyond the Euphrates river , under the
reliable protection by US military servicemen, oil was actively being extracted and then the
fuel trucks were massively being sent for processing outside of Syria."
Image 2: Daman oil gathering station, Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 42 km east of Deir
ez-Zor, August 23, 2019.
Here, in a picture of the Daman oil gathering station (42 kilometers east of the Deir-ez-Zor
province), taken on August 23, a large amount of trucks were spotted. "There were 90 automotive
vehicles, including 23 fuel trucks," the caption to the image said.
In addition, on September 5, there were 25 vehicles in the Al-Hasakah province, including 22
fuel trucks. Three days later, on September 8, in the vicinity of Der Ez-Zor, 36 more vehicles
were recorded (32 of them were fuel trucks). On the same day, 41 vehicles, including 34 fuel
trucks, were in the Mayadin onshore area.
Image 3: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Al-Hasakah province, 8 km west of Al-Shaddadi,
September 5, 2019.
As the official representative of the Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov noted, the Americans
are extracting oil in Syria with the help of equipment, bypassing their own sanctions.
Igor Konashenkov:
"Under the protection of American military servicemen and employees of American PMCs, fuel
trucks from the oil fields of Eastern Syria are smuggling to other states. In the event of
any attack on such a caravan, special operations forces and US military aircraft are
immediately called in to protect it," he said.
According to Konashenkov, the US-controlled company Sadcab , established under the so-called
Autonomous Administration of Eastern Syria , is engaged in the export of oil, and the income of
smuggling goes to the personal accounts of US PMCs and special forces.
The Major General added that as of right now, a barrel of smuggled Syrian oil is valued at
$38, therefore the monthly revenue of US governmental agencies exceeds $30 million.
Image 4: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 10 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
"For such a continuous financial flow, free from control and taxes of the American
government, the leadership of the Pentagon and Langley will be ready to guard and defend oil
fields in Syria from the mythical 'hidden IS cells' endlessly," he said.
According to Konashenkov, Washington, by holding oil fields in eastern Syria, is engaged in
international state banditry.
Image 5: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 14 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
The reason for this activity, he believes, "lies far from the ideals of freedom proclaimed
by Washington and their slogans on the fight against terrorism."
Igor Konashenkov:
"Neither in international law, nor in American legislation itself – there is not and
cannot be a single legal task for the American troops to protect and defend the hydrocarbon
deposits of Syria from Syria itself and its own people, " the representative of the Defense
Ministry concluded.
A day earlier, the Pentagon's head, Mark Esper declared that the United States is studying
the situation in the Deir ez-Zor region and intends to strengthen its positions there in the
near future "to ensure the safety of oil fields."
The Ruskies are mad - Trump is stopping them from taking the oil, it belongs to the Kurds
for their revenue and if US wants to help them have it so what....US is staying to secure
those oilfields against ISIS taking it again!
If everyone listened to the President when he talks there wouldn't be any spin that anyone
could get away with.
The oil is on Kurdish land. This part of Syria is just a small sector of Kurdish territory
that has been stolen from them by dividing it between four "countries", each of which has
oil. This is why the territory was stolen and why the Kurds have become the world's best
fighters.
Putin brokered a deal to stop Turkey wiping the Kurds by having their fighting force
assimilate with the Syrian military and required Russian observers access to ensure the Turks
keep their word and not invade to wipe all the Kurd civilians in order to also take their
Syrian oil.
So the corrupt US generals get caught in the act. Their senators and reps on the payroll
are going to need some more of that fairy tale PR for POTUS to read to us at bedtime.
If we are to believe that this is to protect the oil fields then the oil revenue should be
going to Syria, even though the Kurds are on the land. Follow the money to find the truth
because there is no one you can trust on this stage.
MSM are simply not covering this story. Or the other story about the supposed gas attack
at Douma where evidence was adulterated and/or ignored completely under US pressure.
Expect the same from MH17.
WTF is going on with our leaders and corporate MSM....can no one in a leadership position
distinguish between lies and the truth? Or fantasy and reality? Where are the 'journalists'
who will stand up and tell the truth in MSM? They no longer exist.
18 wheel fuel trucks around here hold 10K gal. 50 truck loads 500K of un processed oil if
it's true? I though they just got there. but no telling who might steal under those
conditions.
That was August. this is now. The Russians must have really wanted that oil to finance
their occupation. Trump is preventing ISIS from using the oil as their piggy bank.
a
