Saker, of course, if "Russia firster". And that makes his analyses of Russia weaker than it should be. But his analysis of the USA
is superb.
Notable quotes:
"... What defeats? US achieved its real goal in Iraq, which was to smash it and leave it divided. Zionist wanted a weak Iraq, and it is weak indeed. US still occupies Afghanistan and uses it for whatever it wants. The longer the war goes on, the Occupation is justified like continued US presence in South Korea. US doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. As long as the war is officially 'on', US can stay and rule that part of the world. ..."
"... And Libya is destroyed. Gaddafi's dream of counter-currency is finished. Libya is like humpty dumpty, smashed forever, and the Zionists are happy. ..."
"... And Syria? It didn't cost America anything to see that nation totally wrecked. ..."
"... re the first sentence of this comment. And probably confusing for "Russia-Firsters"; USA is this/that (all bad) and Russia/China are this/that (all good) but there is a fear about the "bad boy". Doesn't make sense but, well, who cares. We gotta go with the message, that one "USA bad" etc. ..."
"... The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope so. That is the best I can say. ..."
"... US foreign policy flows from internal conditions. As long as the US is ruled by ...Globalists... as their cuckaroo dogs like Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and the rest, nothing will change. ..."
"... Simplistically, it appears most Americans because of the Cold War view geopolitics as a Manichean struggle of civilizations, good versus evil. Therefore, as they understand the United States, representing absolute good, to have been the victor in that battle for the planet, the United States now has the right to dictate terms to the entire globe in a mopping up action. ..."
"... It is US "elites" Modus Operandi, otherwise "exceptionalism" flies out of the window. With some effort and time given we may yet see the US taking credit for the Battle of Lepanto and, eventually, for Thermopylae. Consider his: "Kursk was an Anglo-American victory as well as a Soviet one." (c) ..."
The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that the
US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope, in fact
US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the honor/courage/integrity
to go public about it.
But for 9/11, Alqaeda was always the US's baby. They were used in Afghanistan against the Soviets. US and its ally Pakistan
fully backed Osama and his ilk for a long time. If not for 9/11, US and Alqeda's good relations would have been unbroken.
It's like US-Japan's relations. It got rocky cuz of disagreement over China and then Pearl Harbor. But had it not been for
that, US-Japan relations would have been smooth throughout the 20th century. US had initially backed Japan's war with Russia and
looked the other way when Japan moved into Korea and China. It was Japan's over-reaching that set the two nations apart and led
to Pearl Harbor. But after WWII, they were friends against against China and Russia.
So, it shouldn't surprise us that US and Alqaeda are pals again. They were for a long time. It was US presence in Saudi Arabia
that made Osama bitter and turn against his ally, the US. But with Iran and Shias as the Big Enemy, the US and Alqaeda are friends
again.
And yet, somewhere, to some degree, these guys must know that the odds are not in their favor. For one thing, an endless stream
of military defeats and political embarrassments ought to strongly suggest to them that inaction is generally preferable to action,
especially for clueless people.
What defeats? US achieved its real goal in Iraq, which was to smash it and leave it divided. Zionist wanted a weak Iraq,
and it is weak indeed. US still occupies Afghanistan and uses it for whatever it wants. The longer the war goes on, the Occupation
is justified like continued US presence in South Korea. US doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. As long as the war is officially
'on', US can stay and rule that part of the world.
And Libya is destroyed. Gaddafi's dream of counter-currency is finished. Libya is like humpty dumpty, smashed forever,
and the Zionists are happy.
And Syria? It didn't cost America anything to see that nation totally wrecked.
...These were great successes in a sick way. The Zionist-US goal was to spread chaos and turn those nations into hellholes
that will take many decades to recover. And since 9/11, there's been hardly any major terrorist attacks in America.
Beauties of time zone(s). Anyway . The usual Saker's "panic attack". So, for those 10 % here who aren't actually on his
wavelength, a brief comment. As usual there is a bit of discrepancy between:
the AngloZionist Empire is reeling from its humiliating defeat in Syria
and
Syria (threats of a US-Israeli-KSA attack; attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria)
attack on Russian forces in Syria)
.attack Iranian forces in Syria)
but not important, of course. Just think "USA bad", "Russia good" and all makes sense. Surprisingly, though, this is well stated
Let me immediately say here that listing pragmatic arguments against such aggression is, at this point in time, probably
futile.
with a bit of Freudian slip
that is really frightening.
re the first sentence of this comment. And probably confusing for "Russia-Firsters"; USA is this/that (all bad) and Russia/China
are this/that (all good) but there is a fear about the "bad boy". Doesn't make sense but, well, who cares. We gotta go with the
message, that one "USA bad" etc.
Now, he got this mostly right:
whereas those in the elites not only know that they are total hypocrites and liars, but they actually see this as a sign
superiority: the drones believes in his/her ideology, but his rulers believe in absolutely nothing.
Except they do believe in something: POWER.
He got close here, I admit:
Because they profoundly believe in four fundamental things:
1. We can buy anybody
2. Those we cannot buy, we bully
3. Those we cannot bully we kill
4. Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity not matter what we do
Now, I also admit THIS is quite interesting:
The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that
the US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope,
in fact US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the
honor/courage/integrity to go public about it.
Still, the explanation feels weak.
Imbeciles and cowards. Delusional imbeciles giving orders and dishonorable cowards mindlessly executing them.
He could've gone deeper, but that would've complicated the message. Propaganda is all about keeping things simple and close
to the lowest denominator (read imbecile). Makes sense, actually. He is correct here, though:
Alas, this is also a very hard combo to deter or to try to reason with.
The usual "Bad USA has been losing badly" compulsory part of the article we'll skip here, save:
.to engage either the Iranians or Hezbollah is a very scary option
("panic" thing) And, of course oh man .
Putin is a unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart.
I suggest reading this a couple of times. For a couple of reasons I'd leave to the reader. Back to topic at hand:
I think that we can agree that the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria
and that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies will have to take it.
with
I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't
think that the Neocons believe that the Russians will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway,
right?!)
..("panic" thing)
and
Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them
from trying again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely
..("panic" thing).
and
The truth is that at this point nobody knows what the outcome of a US attack on the DPRK might be, not even the North Koreans.
Will that be enough to deter the delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards currently at the helm of the Empire?
You tell me!
("panic" thing).
And, at the end, kudos actually, he appears to be getting there:
Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018. All my education has
always been based on a crucial central assumption: the other guy is rational.
This isn't bad:
The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more
catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope
so. That is the best I can say.
But I'd keep focus on "I frankly don't know if they can do it". Now, back to fanboys and resident agenda pushers.
Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018.
US foreign policy flows from internal conditions. As long as the US is ruled by ...Globalists... as their cuckaroo dogs
like Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and the rest, nothing will change.
America needs a new civil 'war' to set things right. The ruling elites must be outed, routed, and destroyed. But the elites
have framed the civil war in America as between 'nazis' and 'antifa', and this divide-and-conquer strategy gets nothing done.
The American Left is more at war with Civil War monuments than with the REAL power. This civil 'war' must be between people vs
the elites. But elites have manipulated the conflict as 'blue' vs 'red'.
What happens IN America will affect what happens OUTSIDE America.
There are people on both right and left who know what is going on with this neo-imperialism BS. Elite intellectuals are useless
as critics because the filtering system for elitism favors the cucks and toadies. To reach the top in any profession, one has
to suck up to Zionists, denounce Russia, worship homos, and denounce any form of white agency as 'white supremacism'.
... ... ...
How can the elite power be challenged by non-elites? Is there some way? A new way to use the internet? Maybe. That must be
why the Platforms are shutting down so many alternative voices.
And how can masses of Trumptards and Anti-Trump resistance be convinced that the real power is not with Trump or any president
but with the Deep State that colludes with Big Media and Big donors?
So many Trumptards think all is fine because Trump is president. Likewise, so many progs paid no attention as long as Obama
was president even though Obama proved to be a war criminal.
US is now a silly nation where progs are totally incensed over 'gay cakes'. With dummy populists who think in terms of flag
and guns and idiot decadent proggists who think in terms of 'muh gender' and 'white privilege', a true challenge to sick elite
power is impossible.
We need more on the right to call out on Trump, and we need more on the left to call out on likes of Obama and Hillary. And
both sides need to focus on the Power above Trump-Hillary-Obama. But they are too childish to see anything cuz for most of them,
it's either 'muh guns' or 'muh gender'.
Simplistically, it appears most Americans because of the Cold War view geopolitics as a Manichean struggle of civilizations,
good versus evil. Therefore, as they understand the United States, representing absolute good, to have been the victor in that
battle for the planet, the United States now has the right to dictate terms to the entire globe in a mopping up action.
Yet none of that prevents them from claiming that they, not Russia, defeated Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc. This is absolutely
amazing, think of it –
It is US "elites" Modus Operandi, otherwise "exceptionalism" flies out of the window. With some effort and time given we
may yet see the US taking credit for the Battle of Lepanto and, eventually, for Thermopylae. Consider his: "Kursk was an Anglo-American
victory as well as a Soviet one." (c)
Calvin Coolidge referred to Japan as America's natural friend. Were the economic sanctions imposed because of Japanese expansion
in China, Indochina and the Dutch East Indies really necessary? How important was it to Mr. and Mrs. Average American that China
be governed by Communists, warlords and corrupt nationalists, that Indochina be governed by French colonialists, and the Dutch
East Indies be governed by Dutch colonialists, than by Japanese imperalists? Pat Buchanan has called WWII in Europe the unnecessary
war; I think the truly unnecessary WWII conflict was in the Pacific.
"... the numbers of America fans have plummeted, while the percentage of Russians with actively negative views emerged essentially out of nowhere to constitute majority opinion. ..."
"... For their part, Americans would have to acknowledge that Russians do not have a kneejerk hatred of America, and that the "loss of Russia" was largely of their own doing. ..."
"... The arrogant refusal to take into account Russian interests after the Cold War, instead bombing their allies, expanding NATO to Russian borders in contravention of verbal commitments made to the USSR, and for all intents and purposes treating it as a defeated Power, may have made sense when it seemed that the US would be the world's dominant hyperpower for the foreseeable future and Russia was doomed to die anyway – as was conventional wisdom by the late 1990s. ..."
At the tail end of the Cold War, there was an incredible atmosphere of Americanophilia
throughout the USSR, including amongst Russians.
Blue – approve of USA; orange – disapprove.
Around 75%-80% of Russians approved of the United States around 1990, versus <10%
disapproval.
By
modern standards , this would have put Russia into the top leagues of America fans , such
as Poland, Israel, and the United Kingdom. It was also around 10%-15% points higher than contemporary US approval of
Russia.
The blogger genby dug
up a VCIOM poll
from 1990 asking Russians – that is, Russians within the RSFSR, i.e. the territory of
the modern day Russian Federation – what they thought about Americans.
The poll was redone in 2015, keeping the same questions, which allows a direct comparison
between the two dates.
What in your opinion characterizes the United States?
1990
2015
High criminality and moral degradation
1
15
No warmth in people's relations
1
15
High living standards
35
12
Large gap between rich and poor
5
11
Racial discrimination
1
9
Highly developed science and technology
15
7
Success depends on personal effort
20
7
Free society
13
5
Other
.
6
Can't say for sure
10
12
I would wager Russian opinions on America were more positive c.1990 than the opinions of the
average American on his own country today!
Is US government friendly or hostile to Russia?
1990
2015
Friendly
35
3
Not very friendly
40
32
Hostile
2
59
Can't say
23
6
These results speak for themselves and hardly need more commentary.
Nowadays, of course, things are rather different. Suffice to say the numbers of America fans
have plummeted, while the percentage of Russians with actively negative views emerged essentially out of nowhere to constitute majority opinion.
What I think is more significant is that nobody likes to talk about it now, because it
reflects badly on pretty much everyone.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy in exchange for jeans and
"common human values."
These figures testify to the complete and utter failure of Soviet
propaganda, which spent decades spinning tales about American criminality, unemployment, and
lynched Negroes only to end up with a society with some of the most Americanophile sentiments
in the entire world.
It also makes it much harder to scapegoat Gorbachev, or the mythical
saboteurs and CIA agents in power that feature prominently in sovok conspiracy theories, for
unraveling the Soviet Union, when ordinary Soviets themselves considered America the next best
thing since Lenin
and the US government to be their friend.
For their part, Americans would have to acknowledge that Russians do not have a kneejerk
hatred of America, and that the "loss of Russia" was largely of their own doing.
The arrogant
refusal to take into account Russian interests after the Cold War, instead bombing their
allies, expanding NATO to Russian borders
in contravention of verbal commitments made to the USSR, and for all intents and purposes
treating it as a defeated Power, may have made sense when it seemed that the US would be the
world's dominant hyperpower for the foreseeable future and Russia was doomed to die anyway
– as was conventional wisdom by the late 1990s. And from a purely Realpolitik
perspective, the results have hardly been catastrophic; the US gained a geopolitical foothold
in Eastern Europe, tied up further European integration into an Atlantic framework, and closed
off the possibility of the "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok" envisaged by Charles de Gaulle.
On the other hand, in a world where China is fast becoming a peer competitor – with the
implicit backing of a resentful Russia – this may, in retrospect, not have been the best
long-term play.
Well, this Americanophobia plays well for Americans, who afford a new arms race. Yes, you may
think that America is deep in debt, but its creditors see it as an investment. When the
Exxons of the West will milk the Siberian mineral riches, America will pay everything back.
The alternative, a world where they would invest in Rosneft in order to get a share of the
plunder of, idk, Gulf of Mexico, is silly. As we saw in the 80′s, the best form of war
against Russia is not to bomb and starve Moscow. That won't scare the locals. Let Kremlin do
it instead.
If Putin is not careful, if he doesn't go low tech, low cost, the Americans will win the
long game.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy in exchange for jeans and
"common human values."
Your 'empire' fell to pieces as rapidly as the Hapsburgs' in 1918 and you had to expend
handsome sums in an attempt just to hold onto Chechenya (populaiton 1.1 million). You have
150 million people as is and can do without having to stomp on recalcitrant minorities and to
craft institutions which function in multilingual environments. You never had much of a
constituency in Austria for attempting to reassemble the Hapsburg dominions and Hungary's
ambitions haven't in the last century gone beyond attempting to capture Magyar exclaves.
Look at the other principals in the 1st world war: overseas dependencies retained by them
consist of a portfolio of insular territories which prefer their current status and whose
total population hardly exceeds that of Switzerland. The only one which has retained
contiguous peripheral provinces predominantly populated by minorities would be Turkey. You're
not injured for the loss of an opportunity to replicate the Turkish experience with ethnic
cleansing (of Greeks and Armenians) conjoined to abuse (of Kurds). Everyone lost their
empire, and they're not generally the worse for it.
You have a large national state. Kvetching that you don't have Azerbaijan or Estonia is
inconsistent with good sense.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making
What's remarkable to me about that graph of opinion over time is how pig-headedly
resilient Russian naivety about the US has been. Time after time it appears the scales
would fall from Russians' eyes after the US regime disgraced itself particularly egregiously
(Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia), and within a few months approval would be back up to 50% or above.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
There are no disgraces incorporated into any of these events
That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments, and supporting Georgia was, like
NATO expansion in general and numerous other consistently provocative US foreign policy
measures directed against post-Soviet Russia, a literally stupid matter of turning a
potential ally against the real rival China into an enemy and ally of said rival.
You are perfectly entitled to endorse mere stupidity on the part of your rulers, but the
fact that you so shamelessly approve of waging illegal wars counter to treaty commitments
discredits any opinions you might have on such matters.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy
Actually, present Russian borders are more those of Peter the Great, circa 1717, than Old
Muscovy. Russia, unlike nearly all the Great Powers of the C20th, has retained its Empire
– Siberia, the Russian Far East, Kamchatka, South Russia and the Crimea ( first
acquired as recently as 1783 ).
Once those dim-witted Ukies finally implode the Ukrainian economy, Russia will be able to
gobble up the rest of southern and eastern Ukraine – all the way to Odessa.
The places that seceded from the Soviet Union are places that Russians don't want ( Northern
Kazakhstan excepted ) and are urgently required to receive all those Central Asian immigrants
who will be deported by sensible Russian governments in the near future. ( I exclude
Armenians from the last clause )
Yes, US had squandered a lot of good will in exchange for extremely valuable "geopolitical
foothold in Eastern Europe."
Incidentally, Soviet propaganda was never anti-American. It was anti-capitalist, an
important distinction. Whereas in America, anti-Russian propaganda has always been anti-
Russian .
@RandalThat might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments,
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq and both places had it coming.
Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state . Its
Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude
those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of
Belarus and Ukraine.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
PS: just because we had trouble holding onto Chechnya doesn't mean that annexing Belarus
will be hard. Sure, we can expect blowback in the form of Western sanctions, but I don't
anticipate much resistance from inside Belarus.
@Art
Deco With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions
into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever. US interests suffered as a
result of its ill-advised aggression, they ended up empowering their avowed enemy –
Iran.
@Felix
KeverichWith that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's
incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the
Ukraine.
They dissed you. La di dah. My own countrymen have put up with that from an array of
Eurotrash and 3d world kleptocrats every time we open the newspaper.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever.
No, we did so because that was the best alternative. The other alternative was a sanctions
regime which Big Consciences were assuring the world was causing a six-digit population of
excess deaths each year or taking the sanctions off and letting Saddam and the other Tikritis
to follow their Id. Iraq was a charnel house, and the world is well rid of the Tikriti
regime, especially Iraq's Kurdish and Shia provinces, which have been quiet for a decade. You
don't take an interest in the ocean of blood for which the Ba'ath Party was responsible, but
you're terribly butthurt that politicians in Kiev don't take orders from Moscow. Felix, I can
taste teh Crazy.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Exactly, and you're missing the point. Re-read my previous comment again:
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard
Belarus and Ukraine as part of
"заграница" – foreign countries.
Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional
differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.
I don't care, because this isn't a popularity contest. There were similar polls in Crimea
showing majority support for the EU, just before the peninsula voted overwhelmingly to rejoin
Russia. LOL
The question that matters to me is will there be a vast resistance movement inside Belarus
following the annexation, and to be honest I don't expect one.
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one
type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely
dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:
Example 1:
North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't
even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns
out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.
We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically
advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event
of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always
hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens,
and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.
Example 2:
Commander's intent:
Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.
Execution:
Phase one:
Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery
belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.
Phase two:
Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account
of course).
Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"
Phase four: Regime change.
There you go .
Example 3:
I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before
it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.
These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what
Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life"
[1] which is characterized
by a set of basic characteristics:
First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence,
when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where
in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more
akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain").
You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the
paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious
belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .
Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority,
the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case,
that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological,
hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not
something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically
declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and
other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example
#2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.
The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more
about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of "
my country, right or wrong " but goes far
beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public
opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such
imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility"
to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance
on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs
as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".
A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary
to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated
worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very
same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to
pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become
a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.
As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and
condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.
A totally uncritical acceptance
of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great
example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or
the latest
hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .
The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect
example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound
belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive,
they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like
these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological
drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.
That belief is also the standard cop out in
any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .
Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial
mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with
the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans"
(example #2 is a prefect example of this).
There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already
paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about
them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might
be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience
folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other
oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:
Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological
drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated
and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will
always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with
one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.
As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans
(political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards
have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages
and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated
as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting
kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:
One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning
of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).
Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.
Consequences:
There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that
any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined
with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can
always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech
or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion
than on the actual ability to form one .
By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types")
because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always
see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always
provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.
The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to
learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others.
One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little
staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's
delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I
have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were
absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It
was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly
gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion
as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained
away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory
and leave.
Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars
. And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually
win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue
that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be
convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks
bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent
the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!
We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated
(if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is
not just a case of " Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point
of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in
drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much
worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are
numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught
me about it!).
If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and
that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only
to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of
their own.
What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us
I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and
threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening
the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way
to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody
with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately
involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans
might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.
Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed
neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option
for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans,
remember the previous war in Korea).
But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem
The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world
is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation.
This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.
This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs,
to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force
must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in
the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of
hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.
In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate
the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention
to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable
scenario (see here if that
topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans.
And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as
much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is
by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly
seeking solutions to our current predicament.
-- -- -
1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:
If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in).
We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case
the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country
that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology
on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern
degeneracy.
A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very
Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the
warfare.
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with
NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech (
it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on
the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and
Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and
like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the
tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*
Just a thought.
VicB3
*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things
along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response
of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative
view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel
before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.
His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the
U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed
with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years
.In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand
basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have
been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating
apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express
an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice.
It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything
though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre.
Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority
of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for
his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing
such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes,
look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I
just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will
just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV.
All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave
it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.
Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on
intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for
the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long
enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.
I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in
that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies
that came to a bad end.
so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world
I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an
increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally
stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts.
This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater
threat for the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.
Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany
all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online
conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against
our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate
actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains
from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless?
Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little
freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating
Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking
of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape
parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake.
But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting
the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.
Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid
of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.
Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.
Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better.
And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.
At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY
instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first
Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.
In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different
point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to
you at some length elsewhere.
In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets
of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.
It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.
You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with.
Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out
of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.
"... And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war. ..."
"... r Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia. ..."
"... They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia? ..."
"... The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass. ..."
"... Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy. ..."
"... Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story. ..."
"... Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian ..."
"... There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans. ..."
"... Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. ..."
"... Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014). ..."
"... Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession – with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable. ..."
"... I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup. ..."
"... So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people. ..."
"... Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons ..."
"... The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine. ..."
"... You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion. ..."
"... Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army. ..."
"... The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear. ..."
"... Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible ..."
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making
What's remarkable to me about that graph of opinion over time is how pig-headedly
resilient Russian naivety about the US has been. Time after time it appears the scales
would fall from Russians' eyes after the US regime disgraced itself particularly egregiously
(Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia), and within a few months approval would be back up to 50% or above.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
There are no disgraces incorporated into any of these events
That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments, and supporting Georgia was, like
NATO expansion in general and numerous other consistently provocative US foreign policy
measures directed against post-Soviet Russia, a literally stupid matter of turning a
potential ally against the real rival China into an enemy and ally of said rival.
You are perfectly entitled to endorse mere stupidity on the part of your rulers, but the
fact that you so shamelessly approve of waging illegal wars counter to treaty commitments
discredits any opinions you might have on such matters.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy
Actually, present Russian borders are more those of Peter the Great, circa 1717, than Old
Muscovy. Russia, unlike nearly all the Great Powers of the C20th, has retained its Empire
– Siberia, the Russian Far East, Kamchatka, South Russia and the Crimea ( first
acquired as recently as 1783 ).
Once those dim-witted Ukies finally implode the Ukrainian economy, Russia will be able to
gobble up the rest of southern and eastern Ukraine – all the way to Odessa.
The places that seceded from the Soviet Union are places that Russians don't want ( Northern
Kazakhstan excepted ) and are urgently required to receive all those Central Asian immigrants
who will be deported by sensible Russian governments in the near future. ( I exclude
Armenians from the last clause )
Yes, US had squandered a lot of good will in exchange for extremely valuable "geopolitical
foothold in Eastern Europe."
Incidentally, Soviet propaganda was never anti-American. It was anti-capitalist, an
important distinction. Whereas in America, anti-Russian propaganda has always been anti-
Russian .
@RandalThat might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments,
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq and both places had it coming.
Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state . Its
Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude
those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of
Belarus and Ukraine.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
PS: just because we had trouble holding onto Chechnya doesn't mean that annexing Belarus
will be hard. Sure, we can expect blowback in the form of Western sanctions, but I don't
anticipate much resistance from inside Belarus.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that
the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.
@Art
Deco With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions
into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever. US interests suffered as a
result of its ill-advised agression, they ended up empowering their avowed enemy –
Iran.
This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin
loosens its tight grip of the media.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public
opinion.
@Felix
KeverichCorrection: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Its Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they
exclude those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate
republics of Belarus and Ukraine.
It's western borders are no more artificial than that of any other country not bounded by
mountains or water.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming
Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call
'home' –
'Essential'? You just can't get through the day without Minsk?
As for White Russia, your constituency there has in its dimensions fallen by half in the
last 20 years.
As for the Ukraine, you've no discernable constituency for reunification. The constituency
for a Russophile foreign policy weighs in there at about 12% of the public. VP's
three-dimensional chess game is going swimmingly.
My own forebears discovered in 1813 that the residue of British North America was quite
content with gracious George III, and our boys got their assess handed to them by them
Cannucks. We got over it and so can you. Miss Ukraine is just not that into you. Best not to
play the stalker.
@Felix
KeverichWith that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's
incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the
Ukraine.
They dissed you. La di dah. My own countrymen have put up with that from an array of
Eurotrash and 3d world kleptocrats every time we open the newspaper.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever.
No, we did so because that was the best alternative. The other alternative was a sanctions
regime which Big Consciences were assuring the world was causing a six-digit population of
excess deaths each year or taking the sanctions off and letting Saddam and the other Tikritis
to follow their Id. Iraq was a charnel house, and the world is well rid of the Tikriti
regime, especially Iraq's Kurdish and Shia provinces, which have been quiet for a decade. You
don't take an interest in the ocean of blood for which the Ba'ath Party was responsible, but
you're terribly butthurt that politicians in Kiev don't take orders from Moscow. Felix, I can
taste teh Crazy.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Exactly, and you're missing the point. Re-read my previous comment again: I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard
Belarus and Ukraine as part of
"заграница" – foreign countries.
Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional
differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.
I don't care, because this isn't a popularity contest. There were similar polls in Crimea
showing majority support for the EU, just before the peninsula voted overwhelmingly to rejoin
Russia. LOL
The question that matters to me is will there be a vast resistance movement inside Belarus
following the annexation, and to be honest I don't expect one.
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq
The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely
when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace of
integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from membership
of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.
And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary
pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary
entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification
for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction"
that even if true wouldn't justify war.
An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest
aggressor.
I'm sure you're proud.
and both places had it coming.
A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.
Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such
arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly quiet
about the past three decades of foreign policy.
@reiner
Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't
is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked
pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some
time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught
to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine and, to a
much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between themselves and
Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the culture will further
homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will tell.
Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.
What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the
remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.
Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing for
Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.
It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely
for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000
and in 2004.
Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain.
Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous
conflicts.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
This is for them to decide, not for you.
It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the
world.
Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture.
In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian
culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.
Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians,
55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede from
Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but with
expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013
found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar autonomy
within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea should be
separated and given to Russia".
The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine had
an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013 poll), but
preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by Ukrainians (2008
poll, post-Maidan).
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You
managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.
@AP I
was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among
Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
@Mitleser
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that
Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case
can be made both ways.
reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all
proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state.
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the
cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced
local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a militarized
occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud home.
Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land
that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.
Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time
as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great Russian
speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?
@AP
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These
polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking
about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless
answer.
I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some
leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will
just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.
The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us to
modify our approach.
@German_readerUS started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own
preferences.
It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd been
a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome casus
belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was no better
alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public
opinion.
They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part,
corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure
-- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more
positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing
a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in
Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for
Russia?
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that
the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.
Definitely no.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians
that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when
pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too alienate
the majority permanently.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that
cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension
of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.
Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure --
carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more
positive views of the West.
There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to
deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to
retain control.
What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce
the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with
coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority – they
stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A
typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white
collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" – these are not
the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like they
already fled from Donbass).
In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he
fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had
almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US
sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them.
I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts.
My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views,
and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.
An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends over
the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still less
about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace it was
for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully the
making of Swedish media.
The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian
public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in
the Donbass.
ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would
preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about
the Western elite's plan for Russia?
It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will
prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of
agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate
triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.
Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in
"between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet
propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership
and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy.
Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this
knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to
see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be
even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends
until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became
too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is
another Dunkirk with the UK realizing it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).
Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the way
France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are
relegated to Germany's sidekick.
China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the US
keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it
becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's
economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the
Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost
nothing.
Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the
obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian
public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:
oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing
with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders
on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all
very unoriginal by now.
No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is
some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena
are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching Europeans
might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can
improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and
kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle
Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than
projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).
Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because
we had troops in Iraq?
Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the
Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance
directly to Khamenei.
Is that "victory" for you?
An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to
assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they
never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.
Is that "victory" for you?
And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing
again.
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them.
These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking
about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless
answer.
So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are not
prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their
preference?
So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans
preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied within
Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being part of
Russia?
Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict
your idealistic views?
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the word
I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military service
if they study at university or have good jobs.)
but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the
Russian public and for what purpose?
It is known – the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and
European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in
Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.
Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend
itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority –
they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in
Donbass
Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in 2010
got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange" candidate.
In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist candidates, vs. about
10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth attitudes, was split 50/50
between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20 anti-Maidan winning in
Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?
A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated
white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"
Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and
Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.
Here is how Azov started:
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least
until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during
the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv,
"Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and
served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was
formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim
Troyan:
Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.
these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,
On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they
know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk),
forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while
fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are
nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but passive
support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city full of a
resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if it gets
Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home base of
Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv. And Kiev is
a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million (officially, most likely
about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and maintenance of a repression regime
while under international sanctions.
Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is
actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and
Donbas.
Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact
that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the
invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers
after their cakewalk.
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.
Correct. The thinking often was – "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us
killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our city
I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding the
draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in the East
has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas –
ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels contained
there, they'd have to fight at home.
@AP
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in Eastern
regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few
of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security services
know all of them by name.
To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their
HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis
would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight an
insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived
insurgency.
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.
And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are
not modern western Euros.
And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very
few of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country
Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions (including
Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.
OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who would
be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov. Plus a
military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and probably
redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out block by
block.
trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them
In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30%
voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split
although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the
Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.
Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews, classmates
etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city. Such idealism
and optimism in Russia!
@AP
Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight.
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't
look like they have a lot of fight in them: They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a tantrum,
but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.
@Felix
Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should have
been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
@Felix
Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are the
main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan people
in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like Russia
leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.
As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv.
Maidan itself was a cross-section – of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war
vets, workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students,
nor was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the
western half of the country.
Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:
Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:
Azov people in their native Kharkiv:
Kharkiv kids:
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the
locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is
being invaded.
@AP
Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.
To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types, though
they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from being
exclusively liberal student-types.
- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles – ever since the Revolution. Russia has been
an American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit – in EVERY major American
conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major
compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France. Russia
and the US are natural allies.
- Russians are Americanophiles – they like Hollywood movies, American music, American
idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in
WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.
- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government.
Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt
scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the CIA-backed
2004 and 2014 coups.
Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to
its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian
@Felix
Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it
covered different regions and used the same methodology.
Takeaway:
1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when it
was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.
2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls) in
Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this
matter.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov,
Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness
with the Ukraine before 2014).
4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far
more difficult – and probably best left for sometime in the future.
5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile" sentiment
within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep," then AP is
quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by Putin's
vacillations in 2014.
The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government
Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.
To be clear – Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where
his powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election
accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional
powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of
these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as
referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown
in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.
There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian idealism.
Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a place such as
Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this uniformly
"Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.
You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not
Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.
But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and largely
ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily Russified but
ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk (80% Ukrainian,
20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63% Ukrainian, 21%
Russian).
The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of
Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have friendly
ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia, but did
not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians who would
nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA grabbed a
chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in which Kharkiv
and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using Russian-supplied
bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk,
Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the
Ukraine before 2014).
'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it less
caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to supporting
your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be opposed, even by
your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the dutifully loyal
and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any comment?
@Anatoly
Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider
to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in contemporary Ukraine, where you will go
to prison for displaying Russian flag – who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?
In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the
reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The
same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine – I'm fairly certain of it.
Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and
Kherson
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of
Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to
Russian takeover by self-deporting – they have the money and resources to do it.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic
profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least
until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during
the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv,
"Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and
served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was
formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were
not mostly rich, fey hipsters.
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of
society.
So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia are
the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I don't
agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are the most
easily manipulated by Russian propoganda – a lot of this went on in the Donbas, and we
can see the results of that fiasco to this day.
a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first
derivative of incompetence) to understand that–this is largely the problem with most
"Western" elites.
b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and
clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have "global"
appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's services
that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own severe
military-political limitations.
c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve
real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the
tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".
@AP I
like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose as
Ukraine's "defender" here:
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down upon
by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian nationalist
East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges
draft. It's just the way it is.
@AP The
way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for
whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and
perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security services
have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose a major
challenge.
@Felix
Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in
Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of
them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security guards
and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school headmaster, though
I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class entrepreneur types (e.g.
the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and similar. I think outright criminal
types are a small minority. Since it costs money to attend the matches, outright failures
(the permanently unemployed and similar ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
@reiner
Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime, because
they are considered "heroes" or something.
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine.
If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan war
veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.
Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector
are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.
These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.
As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra
community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.
A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an
office worker, a student who dodges draft
Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office
workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted for
nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012 parliamentary
elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There
aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv oblast
in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic opposition is
in Russia.
I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime.
They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but
they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.
Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering.
But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS
also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds, and
were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.
The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of
delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources,
bigger guns and perhaps even political power
Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in Donbas,
they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas who are
similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are ethnic
Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to fight
against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined similar
pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working class,
security guards, etc.
Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student
activists and businessmen.
And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,
They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that
there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to
make the effort worthwhile.
@Anon
Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the
strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were
floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
@reiner
Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.
My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are willing
to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP says that
Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how
this could work – there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling
far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of themselves
either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov,
just like their compatriots in Crimea did.
Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types.
We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass
republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire
Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities.
But I don't see how this could work – there will a thousand people around them
willing to rat them out.
About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian nationalists
in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after 2014 many of the
hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left Donetsk. Furthermore
anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So there would be plenty
of local support for native insurgents.
Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of Donetsk
reconcile themselves with Kiev?
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces
have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their
city in order to to take it under their control?
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is
only 25% Russian.
With Donbas – there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the
Donbas and Aidar battalions.
@AP It
was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until
Maidanists overthrew his friend
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated
by Azov militia.
These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually
coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea
did
The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining Russia
that are Kharkivites.
The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to
Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves.
Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas.
But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in
Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support
(versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many of
the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some
settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard
enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being
intimidated by Azov militia.
This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see
itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for
Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian
forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders
shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?
The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely
undefended. It's wide open!
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you
Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing
more than a blackshirted illusionist.*
@for-the-record
German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become pretty
clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous extremists.
We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't drag us into
their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't react much to
the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally dependent on the
Americans in security matters.
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be
foolish to have no credible deterrence.
"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in
order to to take it under their control?"
They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the
city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your idea
is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains
completely undefended.
Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is
2014-2015. It is comforting for them.
Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around
Donbas.
Here is a map of various positions in 2017:
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units
such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.
It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible
Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and
Odessa.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000
reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some
50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy
(LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a
lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which
limits their ability field an army.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.
@APSo your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with
flowers.
The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni
centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).
How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what is
its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric bomb
while they are sleeping?
Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and it
didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a completely
different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a better army, so
it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is
comforting for them.
Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on
which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere
near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and
Japan.
@for-the-recordAustria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella"
to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why
couldn't Germany?
Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for
security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?
Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of
Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a
state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that, you
risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean Germany
should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient forces to
protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the German army
should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in places like
Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding Russia it's
still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree vehemently with such
insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, but it would be stupid
not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent hostilities after all). I don't
think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities maybe
some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its
own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to
be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could
eventually become possible or necessary.
@Felix
Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but according
to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000 reservists! For
a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:
@Art
DecoThey've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you
favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade
from now.
Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward, Asiatic,
mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good stuff:
European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and none of the
bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil strife.
Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into
people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a
shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem
is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian
European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.
The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice
that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather
quickly.
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at
least three reasons:
(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's
advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative.
Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once
watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they know
also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising
conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian
troops moved further westward.
(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already
written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles can
stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia, among
other things.
(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as
part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made
this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too,
would be jeopardized by more military action.
You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of
the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.
No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in their
deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole victimhood.
And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?
Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the survival
of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard influential
Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian, and if you
read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.
@Felix
KeverichUnfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military
since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).
Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession
– with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is
inevitable.
Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the
beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized. If
there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at the
very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been purged of
its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage of its
remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has more than
made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in military
spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%.
This translates to an effective quadrupling
in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan economic
collapse.
Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict, and that
will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the happy cruise
to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.
The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce,
but most of it isn't combat ready.
250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.
Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to
feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.
Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2
billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting through.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary
in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go
into the Republic military.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian
world, and the world at large.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
– no Russian went there to get rich.
That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let
alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO member
Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are the
chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of Russia,
which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of civilization?
@Anatoly
Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than
reported elsewhere.
Mobilization percentages by region:
"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the
Khmelnitsky,
Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city
of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia oblast,
which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi,
Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where
the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."
Summary:
2014:
The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of
Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas – they were nothing more than a
fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement with
the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they were
representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective of
service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the Russian
army
2017:
The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to the
soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the state
to adapt the army's structure – for the first time since its creation – to real
operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of
training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a
close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian
armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and
are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event of
a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast
majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital
interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their own
vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with Russia,
but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in a
situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of
mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine
now has the best army it has ever had in its history.
* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively well
trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of veterans
of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry). It must be
stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of the veterans of
the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had served in the Donbas
in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with 266,000 reservists gaining
combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400 reservists were in the armed
forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human factor, it should be possible in a
relatively short period of time to increase the Ukrainian army's degree of combat
readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close battle with a comparable opponent,
something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable of doing at the beginning of
2014.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
– no Russian went there to get rich.
Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local volunteers
are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a wrecked,
sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets. They are
more important than their % indicates.
@Gerard2
..and lets not forget the failure in mobilisation from the Ukrainian military
That and having to hire loads of Georgians, Chechens, Poles and other mercenaries. Pretty much tallys perfectly with the failed shithole Ukraine government structure full of
everyone else .but Ukrainians
@melanf
What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how
they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively
petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU
commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not
important.
It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate
the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things
don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South Africa
they were not new, but you know what I mean).
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to
share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic
sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating
over after the Maidan coup.
So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is
probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt
and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one
of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato
waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of
skilled people.
What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of a
great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access, unlimited
cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at double price.
Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian know
the best and able to decde themselves.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least
three reasons:
Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than it
has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve, or
engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad hand as
well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were made, and
perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of some of the key
oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the separatists in
eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with much more of the
eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame for the situation in
Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not Putin.
In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even
exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic patience
and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.
The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent
stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine
into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be
the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.
You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A
bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5
billion.
Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than
during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their
wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army.
The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the
People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's
Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A
short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it
impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in
urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear.
AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something akin
to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in Aleppo. A
more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their uniforms, once they
realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.
@Felix
Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters more,
since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.
By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%.
Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.
What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from
the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree
with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no
large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have
been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of
Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't you
think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece, create
local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on the
ground.
In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale
American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in
2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian
military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as
was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine.
Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities out
of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something (one
Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a
ridiculous concept at best.
"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary."
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight because
they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that Ukraine
is in total collapse, back to the 90s.
We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked
factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for
some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than Donbas
so this could be more complicated.
@Anatoly
KarlinHow so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population)
worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.
You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's
productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to
1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what
Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in
which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive
capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing
escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).
Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth
the candle.
@Art
Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly
pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I
think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't
there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an
invasion would have been justified)
Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the
provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their
own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian
population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.
Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?
You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya,
the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq.
Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains
stability and peace, or if one does so – take on the responsibility of investing
massive effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would
erupt as a result of one's invasion.
@Anatoly
Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of
Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians they
could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the West and
South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point they will
likely surrender.
After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command and
control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other
infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years
earlier.
Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not
even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces. The
question will not be in this:
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years
earlier.
By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an organized
formation or even units left–anything larger than platoon will be hunted down and
annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in Russian
"ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY C4ISR
capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the East
would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but Russia
has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than merely
probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade.
I will open
some "secret"–nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were subjected to
collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the bacillus of
Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those moyahataskainikam
experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were used way better than
paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.
P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping
hole–Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential
exponentially. Ukies? Not so much–some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of
2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been
delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and politics
is everything.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't
agree with him on that.
I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough
massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple thousand
armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of expensive
damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure Donbas, would
probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want Russia to invade
them.
And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like,
and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.
To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian
military personnel.
The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes hot
in Ukraine–it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said
Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General
Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be
destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many
Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control
escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you
get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such that
Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably forced
to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do something.
Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing the start of
a major shitstorm.
Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect
existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.
A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before Russia/Stalin/Lenin
created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most populated areas in Ukraine
are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite spoken by most Ukrainians (
see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even though he speaks fluent
Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian too), the millions of
Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what exactly is a Ukrainian
is obsolete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian relative the level of
intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical people.
AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.
@Mr.
Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and
decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.
As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the west
were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup and then
the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works out in
Ukraine ( for the better)
@S3
Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in
the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is
what he meant.
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take back
all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.
Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has
even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile
batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while Russia
must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.
So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose this
game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move to
America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a
matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.
The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when the
chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft blown
out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is reduced to
eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's East come into
their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he made Hitler look
like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if America were to get
involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops in a matter of days
while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and WW2 combined.
Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni Arabs
any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would never have
got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.
But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the Olympics.
But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its only
momentarily after all.
@gTLook at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world.
Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the
United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found in
about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of having
a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command had
2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an American
possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers resident, and
that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On the entire
African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.
And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.
I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally
inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now
experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies."
Seems its not only
the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they actually
liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks rot away.
Nineteenth-century empires were often led on from one war to another as a result
of developments which imperial governments did not plan and domestic populations did
not desire. In part this was the result of plotting by individual 'prancing
proconsuls', convinced they could gain a reputation at small risk, given the
superiority of their armies to any conceivable opposition; but it was also the result
of factors inherent in the imperial process.
The difference today is that overwhelming military advantage is possessed not by a
set of competing Western states, but by one state alone. Other countries may
possess elements of the technology, and many states are more warlike than America;
but none possesses anything like the ability of the US to integrate these elements
(including Intelligence) into an effective whole, and to combine them with weight
of firepower, capacity to transport forces over long distances and national
bellicosity. The most important question now facing the world is the use the Bush
Administration will make of its military dominance, especially in the Middle East.
The next question is when and in what form resistance to US domination over the
Middle East will arise. That there will be resistance is certain. It would be
contrary to every historical precedent to believe that such a quasi-imperial
hegemony will not stir up resentment, which sooner or later is bound to find an
effective means of expression.
US domination over the Middle East will, for the
most part, be exercised indirectly, and will provoke less grievance than direct
administration would, but one likely cause of trouble is the 'proletarian
colonisation' of Israel – the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories.
Given past experience and the indications now coming from Israel, there is little
reason to hope for any fundamental change in Israeli policies. Sharon may
eventually withdraw a few settlements – allowing the US Administration and the
Israeli lobby to present this as a major concession and sacrifice – but
unless
there is a tremendous upheaval in both Israeli and US domestic politics, he and
his successors are unlikely to offer the Palestinians anything more than tightly
controlled bantustans.
Palestinian terrorism, Israeli repression and wider Arab and Muslim
resentment seem likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
How long it will be before serious resistance grows is hard to tell. In some
19th-century cases, notably Afghanistan, imperial rule never consolidated itself
and was overthrown almost immediately by new revolts. In others, it lasted for
decades without involving too much direct repression, and ended only after
tremendous social, economic, political and cultural changes had taken place not
only in the colonies and dependencies but in the Western imperial countries
themselves. Any attempt to predict the future of the Middle East must recognise
that
the new era which began on 11 September 2001 has not only brought into
the open certain latent pathologies in American and British society, culture and
politics; it has also fully revealed the complete absence of democratic
modernisation, or indeed any modernisation, in all too much of the Muslim world.
The fascination and the horror of the present time is that so many different
and potentially disastrous possibilities suggest themselves. The immediate issue
is whether the US will attack any other state. Or, to put the question another
way: will the US move from hegemony to empire in the Middle East? And if it does,
will it continue to march from victory to victory, or will it suffer defeats which
will sour American public support for the entire enterprise?
For Britain, the most important question is whether Tony Blair, in his capacity
as a senior adviser to President Bush, can help to stop US moves in this direction
and, if he fails, whether
Britain is prepared to play the only role it is
likely to be offered in a US empire: that fulfilled by Nepal in the British Empire
– a loyal provider of brave soldiers with special military skills.
Will the
British accept a situation in which their chief international function is to
provide auxiliary cohorts to accompany the Roman legions of the US, with the added
disadvantage that British cities, so far from being protected in return by the
empire, will be exposed to destruction by 'barbarian' counter-attacks?
As is clear from their public comments, let alone their private
conversations, the Neo-Conservatives in America and their allies in Israel would
indeed like to see a long-term imperial war against any part of the Muslim world
which defies the US and Israel, with ideological justification provided by the
American
mission civilisatrice
– 'democratisation'.
In the words of
the Israeli Major-General Ya'akov Amidror, writing in April under the auspices of
the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, 'Iraq is not the ultimate goal. The
ultimate goal is the Middle East, the Arab world and the Muslim world. Iraq will
be the first step in this direction; winning the war against terrorism means
structurally changing the entire area.'
The Neo-Con model is the struggle
against 'Communism', which they are convinced was won by the Reaganite conflation
of military toughness and ideological crusading. The ultimate goal here would be
world hegemony by means of absolute military superiority.
The Neo-Cons may be deluding themselves, however. It may well be that, as many
US officials say in private, Bush's new national security strategy is 'a doctrine
for one case only' – namely Iraq. Those who take this position can point to the
unwillingness of most Americans to see themselves in imperial terms, coupled with
their powerful aversion to foreign entanglements, commitments and sacrifices. The
Bush Administration may have made menacing statements about Syria, but it has also
assured the American people that the US military occupation of Iraq will last 18
months at the very most. Furthermore, if the economy continues to falter, it is
still possible that Bush will be ejected from office in next year's elections.
Should this happen, some of the US's imperial tendencies will no doubt remain in
place – scholars as different as Andrew Bacevich and Walter Russell Mead have
stressed the continuity in this regard from Bush through Clinton to Bush, and
indeed throughout US history. However, without the specific configuration of
hardline elements empowered by the Bush Administration, American ambitions would
probably take on a less megalomaniac and frightening aspect.
In this analysis, both the grotesque public optimism of the Neo-Con
rhetoric about democratisation and its exaggeration of threats to the US stem from
the fact that it takes a lot to stir ordinary Americans out of their customary
apathy with regard to international affairs. While it is true that an element of
democratic messianism is built into what Samuel Huntington and others have called
'the American Creed', it is also the case that many Americans have a deep
scepticism – healthy or chauvinist according to taste – about the ability of other
countries to develop their own forms of democracy.
In the case of Iraq, this scepticism has been increased by the scenes of
looting and disorder. In addition, there have been well-publicised harbingers both
of incipient ethnic conflict and of strong mass opposition to a long-term US
military presence and a US-chosen Iraqi Government. Even the
Washington Post
,
which was one of the cheerleaders for this war in the 'serious' American press,
and which has not been too anxious to publicise Iraqi civilian casualties, has
reported frankly on the opposition to US plans for Iraq among the country's Shia
population in particular.
Even if most Americans and a majority of the Administration want to move to
indirect control over Iraq, the US may well find that it has no choice but to
exercise direct rule. Indeed, even those who hated the war may find themselves
morally trapped into supporting direct rule if the alternative appears to be a
collapse into anarchy, immiseration and ethnic conflict. There is a tremendous
difference in this regard between Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the mass
of the population has been accustomed to fend for itself with very little help
from the state, very little modern infrastructure and for that matter very little
formal employment. In these circumstances, it was possible for the US to install a
ramshackle pretence of a coalition government in Kabul, with a tenuous truce
between its elements held in place by an international peacekeeping force backed
by US firepower. The rest of the country could be left in the hands of warlords,
clans and ethnic militias, as long as they made their territories open hunting
ranges for US troops in their search for al-Qaida. The US forces launch these
raids from airbases and heavily fortified, isolated camps in which most soldiers
are kept rigidly separated from Afghans.
Doubtless many US planners would be delighted to dominate Iraq in the same
semi-detached way, but Iraq is a far more modern society than Afghanistan, and
much more heavily urbanised: without elements of modern infrastructure and
services and a state to guarantee them, living standards there will not recover.
Iraq needs a state; but for a whole set of reasons, it will find the creation of a
workable democratic state extremely difficult. The destruction of the Baath regime
has involved the destruction of the Sunni Arab military dominance on which the
Iraqi state has depended since its creation by the British. Neither the US nor
anyone else has any clear idea of what to put in its place (if one ignores the
fatuous plan of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to install Ahmad Chalabi as an American
puppet and Iraqi strongman). Equally important, the US will not allow the creation
of a truly independent state. Ultimately, it may well see itself as having no
choice but to create the state itself and remain deeply involved not just in
supporting it but in running it, as the British did in Egypt for some sixty years.
Very often – perhaps most of the time – the old imperial powers preferred to
exercise control indirectly, through client states. This was far cheaper, far
easier to justify domestically and ran far less chance of provoking native revolt.
The problem was that the very act of turning a country into a client tended to
cripple the domestic prestige of the client regime, and to place such economic,
political and moral pressures on it that it was liable to collapse. The imperial
power then had the choice of either pulling out (and allowing the area to fall
into the hands of enemies) or stepping in and imposing direct control. This
phenomenon can be seen from Awadh and Punjab in the 1840s to the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan in 1989.
Of course, the threat to imperial client states did not come only from
within their own borders. In a world where ethnic, clan, religious and personal
loyalties spilled across national boundaries, a power that seized one territory
was likely to find itself inexorably drawn to conquering its neighbours. There
were always military, commercial or missionary interests to agitate for this
expansion, often backed by exiled opposition groups ready to stress that the mass
of the population would rejoice in an imperial invasion to bring them to power.
Whatever the Neo-Cons and the Israeli Government may wish, there is I believe
no fixed intention on the part of the US Administration to attack either Syria or
Iran, let alone Saudi Arabia. What it had in mind was that an easy and crushing US
victory over Iraq would so terrify other Muslim states that they would give up any
support for terrorist groups, collaborate fully in cracking down on terrorists and
Islamist radicals, and abandon their own plans to develop weapons of mass
destruction, thereby making it unnecessary for the US to attack them. This applied
not only to perceived enemies such as Syria, Iran and Libya, but to Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Yemen and other states seen as unreliable allies in the 'war against
terrorism'. If the US restricts itself to this strategy and this goal, it may
enjoy success – for a while at least. Several states in the region are clearly
running very scared. Moreover, every single state in the region – including Iran –
feels under threat from the forces of Sunni Islamist revolution as represented by
al-Qaida and its ideological allies; so there is a genuine common interest in
combating them.
But for this strategy to work across such a wide range of states and societies
as those of the Muslim world, US policymakers would have to display considerable
sensitivity and discrimination. These are virtues not usually associated with the
Bush Administration, least of all in its present triumphalist mood. The policy is
in any case not without its dangers. What happens if the various pressures put on
the client regimes cause them to collapse? And what happens if an enemy calls
America's bluff, and challenges it to invade? It is all too easy to see how a new
US offensive could result. Another major terrorist attack on the US could upset
all equations and incite another wave of mass hysteria that would make anything
possible. If, for example, it were once again perceived to have been financed and
staffed by Saudis, the pressure for an attack on Saudi Arabia could become
overwhelming. The Iranian case is even trickier. According to informed European
sources, the Iranians may be within two years of developing a nuclear deterrent
(it's even possible that successful pressure on Russia to cut off nuclear trade
would not make any crucial difference). Israel in particular is determined to
forestall Iranian nuclear capability, and Israeli commentators have made it clear
that Israel will take unilateral military action if necessary. If the US and
Israeli Governments are indeed determined to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons,
they may not have much time.
The second factor is the behaviour of the Shias of Iraq, and especially of
Iranian-backed factions. Leading Shia groups have boycotted the initial
discussions on forming a government. If they maintain this position, and if the US
fails to create even the appearance of a viable Iraqi government, with disorder
spreading in consequence, Iran will be blamed, rightly or not, by powerful
elements in Washington. They will use it as an additional reason to strike against
Iranian nuclear sites. In response, Tehran might well promote not only a further
destabilisation of Iraq but a terrorist campaign against the US, which would in
turn provoke more US retaliations until a full-scale war became a real
possibility.
Although the idea of an American invasion of Iran is viewed with horror by
most military analysts (and, as far as I can gather, by the uniformed military),
the latest polls suggest that around 50 per cent of Americans are already prepared
to support a war to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the
voices of moderation among the military tend to be the same ones which warned – as
I did – of the possibility of stiff Iraqi resistance to a US invasion and the
dangers of urban warfare in Baghdad, opposed Rumsfeld's plans to invade with
limited numbers of relatively lightly armed troops and felt vindicated in their
concern by the initial setbacks around Nasiriya and elsewhere. The aftermath has
shown Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to have been correct in their purely military
calculations about Iraq, and this will undoubtedly strengthen them in future
clashes with the uniformed military. Rumsfeld's whole strategy of relying on
lighter, more easily transportable forces is, of course, precisely designed to
make such imperial expeditions easier.
As for the majority of Americans, well, they have already been duped once, by a
propaganda programme which for systematic mendacity has few parallels in peacetime
democracies: by the end of it, between 42 and 56 per cent of Americans (the polls
vary) were convinced that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of
11 September. This gave the run-up to the war a peculiarly nightmarish quality in
the US. It was as if the full truth about Tonkin Gulf, instead of emerging in
dribs and drabs over a decade, had been fully available and in the open the whole
time – and the US intervention in Vietnam had happened anyway.
While the special place of Saddam Hussein in American demonology means that
this wouldn't be an easy trick to repeat, the American public's ignorance of
international affairs in general and the Muslim world in particular make it by no
means impossible. It isn't just Fox TV: numerous even more rabid media outlets,
the Christian Coalition and parts of the Israeli lobby are all dedicated to
whipping up hatred of Arabs and Muslims. More important is the fact that most
Americans accept Bush's equation of terrorism and 'evil', which makes it extremely
difficult to conduct any serious public discussion of threats from the Muslim
world in terms which would be acceptable or even comprehensible to a mass American
audience. Add to this the severe constraints on the discussion of the role of
Israel, and you have a state of public debate close to that described by Marcuse.
If America suffered another massive terrorist attack in the coming years, the
dangers would be incomparably greater.
If the plans of the Neo-Cons depended on mass support for imperialism
within the US, they would be doomed to failure. The attacks of 11 September,
however, have given American imperialists the added force of wounded nationalism –
a much deeper, more popular and more dangerous phenomenon, strengthened by the
Israeli nationalism of much of the American Jewish community. Another attack on
the American mainland would further inflame that nationalism, and strengthen
support for even more aggressive and ambitious 'retaliations'.
The terrorists
may hope that they will exhaust Americans' will to fight, as the Vietcong did; if
so, they may have underestimated both the tenacity and the ferocity of Americans
when they feel themselves to have been directly attacked. The capacity for
ruthlessness of the nationalist or Jacksonian element in the American democratic
tradition – as in the firebombing of Japan and North Korea, neither of which had
targeted American civilians – has been noted by Walter Russell Mead, and was
recently expressed by MacGregor Knox, an American ex-soldier, now a professor at
the LSE: Europeans 'may believe that the natural order of things as they perceive
it – the restraint of American power through European wisdom – will sooner or
later triumph. But such expectations are delusional. Those who find militant Islam
terrifying have clearly never seen a militant democracy.'
America could certainly be worn out by a protracted guerrilla struggle on
the scale of Vietnam. It seems unlikely, however, that a similar struggle could be
mounted in the Middle East – unless the US were to invade Iran, at which point all
bets and predictions would be off. Another terrorist attack on the US mainland,
using some form of weapons of mass destruction, far from demoralising the US
population would probably whip it into chauvinist fury.
To understand why successful guerrilla warfare against the US is unlikely
(quite apart from the fact that there are no jungles in the Middle East), it is
necessary to remember that the imperial domination made possible by 19th-century
Western military superiority was eventually destroyed by three factors: first, the
development of military technology (notably such weapons as the automatic rifle,
the grenade and modern explosives) which considerably narrowed the odds between
Western armies and 'native' insurgents. Second, the development of modern
ideologies of resistance – Communist, nationalist or a combination of the two –
which in turn produced the cadres and structures to organise resistance. Third,
weariness on the part of 'metropolitan' populations and elites, stemming partly
from social and cultural change, and partly from a growing awareness that direct
empire did not pay economically.
Guerrilla warfare against the US is now a good deal more difficult because
of two undramatic but immensely important innovations: superbly effective and
light bullet-proof vests and helmets which make the US and British soldier almost
as well protected as the medieval knight; and night-vision equipment which denies
the guerrilla the aid of his oldest friend and ally, darkness. Both of these
advantages can be countered, but it will be a long time before the odds are
narrowed again. Of course, local allies of the US can be targeted, but their
deaths are hardly noticed by US public opinion. More and more, therefore,
'asymmetric warfare' will encourage a move to terrorism.
The absence or failure of revolutionary parties led by cadres working for mass
mobilisation confirms this. The Islamists may alter this situation, despite the
disillusioning fate of the Iranian Revolution. But as far as the nationalists are
concerned, it has been tried in the past, and while it succeeded in expelling the
colonialists and their local clients, it failed miserably to produce modernised
states. Algeria is a clear example: a hideously savage but also heroic rebellion
against a particularly revolting form of colonialism – which eventually led to
such an utterly rotten and unsuccessful independent state that much of the
population eventually turned to Islamic revolution.
And now this, too, is discredited, above all in the one major country where it
succeeded, Iran. Arab states have failed to develop economically, politically and
socially, and they have also failed properly to unite. When they have united for
the purposes of war, they have been defeated. Rebellion against the US may take
place in Iraq. Elsewhere, the mass response to the latest Arab defeat seems more
likely to be a further wave of despair, disillusionment and retreat into private
life – an 'internal emigration'. In some fortunate cases, this may lead to a new
Islamist politics focused on genuine reform and democratic development – along the
lines of the changes in Turkey. But a cynicism which only feeds corruption and
oppression is just as likely a result.
Even if despair and apathy turn out to be the responses of the Arab majority,
there will also be a minority which is too proud, too radical, too fanatical or
too embittered – take your pick – for such a course. They are the natural recruits
for terrorism, and it seems likely that their numbers will only have been
increased by the latest American victory. We must fear both the strengthening of
Islamist terrorism and the reappearance of secular nationalist terrorism, not only
among Palestinians but among Arabs in general. The danger is not so much that the
Bush Administration will consciously adopt the whole Neo-Con imperialist programme
as that the Neo-Cons and their allies will contribute to tendencies stemming
inexorably from the US occupation of Iraq and that the result will be a vicious
circle of terrorism and war. If this proves to be the case, then the damage
inflicted over time by the US on the Muslim world and by Muslims on the US and its
allies is likely to be horrendous. We have already shown that we can destroy
Muslim states. Even the most ferocious terrorist attacks will not do that to
Western states; but if continued over decades, they stand a good chance of
destroying democracy in America and any state associated with it.
The waves, the artificial tides of anti-Russian propaganda continue to beat upon the ears
and eyes of Western citizens, spurred by US politicians, bureaucrats and tycoons whose motives
vary from duplicitous to blatantly commercial. It is no coincidence that there has been vastly
increased expenditure on US weaponry by Eastern European countries.
Complementing the weapons' build-up, which is so sustaining and lucrative for the US
industrial-military complex, the naval, air and ground forces of the US-NATO military alliance
continue operations ever closer to Russia's borders.
Shares and dividends in US arms manufacturing companies have rocketed, in a most
satisfactory spinoff from Washington's policy of global confrontation, and the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) records that "arms sales are recognized widely
as an important instrument of state power. States have many incentives to export arms. These
include enhancing the security of allies or partners; constraining the behavior of adversaries;
using the prospect of arms transfers as leverage on governments' internal or external behavior;
and creating the economics of scale necessary to support a domestic arms industry."
The CRS notes that arms deals "are often a key component in Congress's approach to advancing
US foreign policy objectives," which is especially notable around the Baltic and throughout the
Middle East, where US wars have created a bonanza for US weapons makers -- and for the
politicians whom the manufacturers reward so generously for their
support. (Additionally, in 2017 arms manufacturers spent $93,937,493 on
lobbying Congress.)
Some countries, however, do not wish to purchase US weaponry, and they are automatically
categorized as being influenced by Russia, which is blamed for all that has
gone wrong in America over the past couple of years. This classification is especially notable
in the Central Asian Republics.
The US military's Central Command (Centcom) states that its "area of responsibility
spans more than 4 million square miles and is populated by more than 550 million people from 22
ethnic groups, speaking 18 languages . . . and confessing [ sic; probably
'professing'] multiple religions which transect national borders. The demographics create
opportunities for tension and rivalry." Centcom is deeply engaged in the US wars in Iraq, Syria
and Afghanistan, while supporting Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen, and the extent of its
influence in the Pentagon's self-allotted geographical Area of Responsibility is intriguing, to
say the least. Some of its priorities were revealed in March 2017 by the Commander of this
enormous military realm, General Joseph Votel, in
testimony to the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives in
Washington.
General Votel's description of US "responsibilities" was astonishing in its imperialistic
arrogance.
As Commander of Centcom, General Votel gave the Armed Services Committee a colorful tour of
his territory, describing nations in terms ranging from condescendingly supportive to patently
insolent, and he devoted much time to describing relations with countries abutting Russia, Iran
and China, which nations, he
declared , are trying "to limit US influence in the sub-region." That "sub-region" includes
many countries immediately on the borders of Russia, Iran and China, and averaging 7,000 miles
(11,000 kilometers) from Washington.
First he dealt with Kazakhstan with which the US has its "most advanced military
relationship in Central Asia" in furtherance of which Washington is "making notable progress .
. . despite enduring Russian influence." It is obviously unacceptable to the Pentagon that
Russia wishes to maintain cordial relations with a country with which it has a border of 6,800
kilometers. Then General Votel went into fantasyland by claiming that "Kazakhstan remains the
most significant regional contributor to Afghan stability . . ." which even the members of the
Congressional Committee would have realized is spurious nonsense.
But more nonsense was to follow, with General Votel
referring to Kyrgyzstan in patronizing terms usually associated with a Viceroy or other
colonial master of a region that Votel describes as "widely characterized by pervasive
instability and conflict," which he failed to note were caused by the US wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
He told the Committee that Kyrgyzstan "sees political pressure from its larger, more
powerful neighbors, including Russia, hosting a small Russian airbase outside the capital,
Bishkek. Despite ongoing challenges in our bilateral and security cooperation, we continue to
seek opportunities to improve our mil-to-mil relationship." He did not explain why Kyrgyzstan
should be expected to embrace a military alliance with United States Central Command, but
Viceroys don't have to provide explanations.
Votel then moved to describe Tajikistan with which "our mil-to-mil relationship is deepening
despite Moscow's enduring ties and the presence of the military base near Tajikistan's capital
of Dushanbe, Russia's largest military base outside of its borders." Not only this, says Votel,
but China (having a 400 kilometer border with Tajikistan) has had the temerity to have
"initiated a much stronger military cooperation partnership with Tajikistan, adding further
complexity to Tajikistan's multi-faceted approach to security cooperation."
No : China hasn't added any complexity to Tajikistan's circumstances. What has complicated
their relations is the fact that Afghanistan is in a state of chaos, following the US invasion
of 2001, and drugs and terrorists cross the border (1,300 kilometers long) from Afghanistan
into Tajikistan, which is trying to protect itself. During its sixteen years of war in
Afghanistan there has been no attempt by the United States to secure that border.
None of these countries wants to be forced into a military pact with the United States, and
Turkmenistan (border with Afghanistan 750 kilometers) has made it clear it doesn't want to be
aligned with anyone. But General Votel states that its "UN-recognized policy of 'positive
neutrality' presents a challenge with respect to US engagement." No matter what is desired by
Turkmenistan, it seems, there must always be a way for the United States Central Command to
establish military relations and, as General Votel told the Defence Committee, "we are
encouraged somewhat by Turkmenistan's expressed interest in increased mil-to-mil engagement
with the US within the limits of their 'positive neutrality' policy."
In the minds (to use the word loosely) of General Votel and his kind, it doesn't matter if a
country wants nothing whatever to do with the United States' military machine, and wants very
much to be left alone to get on with its affairs without interference. Adoption of such a
policy by any nation presents a "challenge" and the United States, which in this region is
overseen by General Votel's Central Command, is determined to seek military "engagement"
irrespective of what is desired by governments. Arms sales would swiftly follow.
Votel's tour of his area of responsibility covered Afghanistan, about which his most absurd
assertion was "I believe what Russia is attempting to do is they are attempting to be an
influential party in this part of the world. I think it is fair to assume they may be providing
some sort of support to [the Taliban] in terms of weapons or other things that may be
there."
There was not a shred of evidence provided, but the Committee accepted his pronouncement
without question. If an allegation is made about Russia it doesn't matter if it is false. It
must be believed. But unfortunately for the imperial Votel and his deferential audience, a
person with some sense of truth and balance came up two months later with a statement
rubbishing Votel's unfounded and provocative accusation. In May the Director of the US Defence
Intelligence Agency
told a Senate Committee that "We have seen indication that [Russia] offered some level of
support [to the Taliban], but I have not seen real physical evidence of weapons or money being
transferred." The mainstream media gave no publicity to the truth, and continue to blame Russia
for all the ills that befall the US Empire, at home and overseas.
The state of affairs was summed up admirably by
Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation on December 4 when he wrote that "Central
to any national-security state is the need for official enemies, ones that are used to frighten
and agitate the citizenry. If there are no official enemies, the American citizenry might begin
asking some discomforting questions: What do we need a national-security state for? Why not
abolish the CIA and dismantle the military-industrial complex and the NSA. Why can't we have
our limited-government, constitutional republic back?"
The Motto of the Pentagon's Central
Command is "Prepare, Pursue, Prevail." and the Central Asian Republics would be well-advised to
bear in mind these threats and think hard about the underlying motif of the US
military-industrial complex which is "Propagandize, Provoke, Profit."
"... William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany. ..."
"... A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .) ..."
"... So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs." ..."
"... The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark. ..."
"... The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place. ..."
"... The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency." ..."
"... ancien régime, ..."
"... With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway. ..."
"... Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad. ..."
"... So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it. ..."
"... It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them. ..."
"... The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. ..."
"... Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business. ..."
"... It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people! ..."
"... The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC. ..."
"... This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end. ..."
"... Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves. ..."
"... On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives. ..."
"... The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria. ..."
"... Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities. ..."
"... An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena." ..."
"... The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"... To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime." ..."
"... The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines. ..."
"... The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime. ..."
"... The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians. ..."
"... In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision." ..."
"... Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making ..."
"... General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria. ..."
"... The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection. ..."
"... That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions". ..."
"... The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces. ..."
"... I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm ..."
"... Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. ..."
"... Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. ..."
"... The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic. ..."
"... Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union. ..."
"... All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth. ..."
"... There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html ..."
"... Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg. ..."
"... The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. ..."
"... The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292 ..."
"... This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions ..."
"... Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated ..."
"... So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either. ..."
"... From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm". ..."
"... For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree. ..."
"... I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit. ..."
"... Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking. The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences. ..."
"... I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r? ..."
"... Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy. ..."
"... Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace? ..."
When a Department of Defense intelligence
report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn't
know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that
Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of
backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.
Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in
August 2014.
The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a
nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World
Trade Center?
It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it
was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information
lawsuit . The New York Times didn't mention it until
six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before
dismissing it as "loopy" and "relatively unimportant." With ISIS rampaging across much of
Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than
hostile.
But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report,
attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts
agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.
After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter
C.J. Chivers
wrote that the group "mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and
the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning."
Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut,
assured the Washington Post that "al Qaeda is a fringe element" among the rebels, while,
not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a
pin-up of a "ridiculously photogenic" jihadi toting an RPG.
"Hey girl," said the subhead. "Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny."
And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington,
which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill's " Two Cheers for Syrian
Islamists ," which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was
completed, didn't distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a
classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: "So the rebels aren't secular
Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn't much matter."
Assessing the Damage
Five years later, it's worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to
reduce an entire nation to rubble.
First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region's prime
imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal
Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating
Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was
concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with
assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it
could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.
William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus
urged
Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of
Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to
playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.
A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department
memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries
in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts
at 2:07 .)
Since the United States didn't like what such governments were doing, the solution was to
install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington's joy when the Arab Spring struck
Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their
own.
Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian
chants of "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin," U.S. enthusiasm remained strong.
With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there
was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.
Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer
in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead
instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both
unavoidable and far from entirely negative.
"Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized
for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship," he wrote in reference to
the Baathists. "Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic
world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad's Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed
regime."
So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist
surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver
linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than
their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside
bombs."
The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic
defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the
seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.
"So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies," the article
concluded, "we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict
that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame
the beast after Iran's regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames."
Deals with the Devil
The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The
good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not
have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the
viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his
piece in the first place.The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away
like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that's all that
counts.
The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the
opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim
Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency."
Where Gambill predicted that "Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern
Syria," the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish "a declared or undeclared Salafist
principality" at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known
as Deir ez-Zor).
Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine
Shi'ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality "is exactly what the supporting powers
to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic
depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
Bottle up the Shi'ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni
extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi'ite-influenced Iraq and
Shi'ite-ruled Iran.
As Gambill put it: "Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people,
any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for
three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran
unthinkable, it won't have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy
adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from
Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington."
With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.
Disastrous Thinking
Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is
hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive,
400,000
Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million
displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.
U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy
(left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot
from the YouTube video] War-time destruction totals around $250
billion , according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million
people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria,
the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North
America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still
struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of
U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.
So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East
is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian
influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now
seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is
lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore
up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.
It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy
establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has
moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder
and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee
defended or at least apologized for.
The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic
critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill's kind words about "suicide bombings
and roadside bombs" – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic
terrorism.
Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do
it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Babyl-on , December 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm
I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming
the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that
peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of
central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US
and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will
slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them.
The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day
now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has
already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5
years. When that happens the world will return to the gold standard + Bitcoin possibly and US
dollar hegemony will end. After that the trillion dollar a year military and the 20 trillion
debt take on a different meaning. Before that slaughter non-stop will continue.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:31 am
Really, Baby-lon, your first short paragraph sums this piece by Lazare perfectly and makes
the rest of his blog seem rather pointless. Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't
think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and
stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington
don't want peace at any price because its bad for business.
Babyl-on and John Wilson: you have nailed it. The last thing the US (gov't.) wants is
peace. War is big business; casualties are of no concern (3 million Koreans died in the
Korean War; 3 million Vietnamese in that war; 100's of thousands in Iraq [including Clinton's
sanctions] and Afghanistan). The US has used jihadi proxies since the mujahedeen in 1980's
Afghanistan and Contras in Nicaragua. To the US (gov't.), a Salafist dictatorship (such as
Saudi Arabia) is highly preferable to a secular, nationalist ruler (such as Egypt's Nasser,
Libya's Gaddafi, Syria's Assad).
So the cover story of the jjihadi's has changed – first they are freedom fighters, then
terrorists. What does not change is that in either case they are pawns of the US (gov't.)
goal of hegemony.
(Incidentally, Drew Hunkins must be responding to a different article.)
Exactly Baby right on, Either USA strategists are extremely ignorant or they are attempting
to create chaos, probably both.
Perhaps not continuously but surely frequently the USA has promoted war prior to the last 73
years. Native Genocide , Mexican Wars, Spanish War, WWI ( USA banker repayment war)
Richard , December 9, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Exactly Babylon! Looks like consortiumnews is turning into another propaganda rag. Assad
was allied with Russia and Iran – that's why the U.S. wanted him removed. Israel said
that they would preferred ISIS in power over Assad. The U.S. would have happily wiped out 90%
of the population using its terrorist proxies if it thought it could have got what it
wanted.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:50 am
CN tends to make moderate statements so as to communicate with those most in need of
them.
One must start with the understandings of the audience and show them that the evidence leads
further.
Richard , December 10, 2017 at 10:27 am
Sam F, no, it's a DELIBERATE lie in support of U.S. foreign policy. The guy wrote: "the
NAIVE belief that jihadist proxies could be used to TRANSFORM THE REGION FOR THE BETTER." It
could have been written as: "the stated justification by the president that he wanted to
transform the region for the better, even though there are often ulterior motives."
It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always
presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war
INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what
state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let
alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first
Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his
military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion
in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to
rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the
U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the
people!
Either Robert Parry or the author wrote that introduction. I suspect Mr Parry – he
always portrays the president as having a heart of gold, but, always, sadly, misinformed;
being a professional journalist, he knows full well that people often only read the start and
end of an article.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 5:31 pm
What we have occurring right now in the United States is a rare divergence of interests
within our ruling class. The elites are currently made up of Zionist-militarists. What we're
now witnessing is a rare conflict between the two factions. This particular internecine
battle has reared its head in the past, the Dubai armaments deal comes to mind off the top of
my head.
Trump started the Jerusalem imbroglio because he's concerned about Mueller's witch
hunt.
The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures
towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain
to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S.
politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they
easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber
rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the
careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making
peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC.
Since Trump's concerned about 1.) Mueller's witch hunt (he definitely should be deeply
concerned, this is an out of control prosecutor on mission creep), and 2.) the almost total
negative coverage the press has given him over the last two years, he's made a deal with the
Zionist Power Configuration; Trump, effectively saying to them: "I'll give you Jerusalem, you
use your immense influence in the American mass media to tamp down the relentlessly hostile
coverage toward me, and perhaps smear Mueller's witch hunt a bit ".
This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being
reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will
end.
How this all eventually plays out is anyone's guess indeed. Let's just make sure it
doesn't end with mushroom clouds over Tehran, Saint Petersburg, Paris, Chicago, London, NYC,
Washington and Berlin.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
Trump's purported deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy regarding both Russia and Israel
was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning. As Russia-gate fiction is progressively deconstructed, the Israel-gate reality becomes
ever more despicably obvious.
The shamelessly Israel-pandering Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions
to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New
York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace,
calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for
Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.
Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has "1000 percent" support
from the Trump regime.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm
If Trump were totally and completely subservient to Netanyahu he would have bombed
Damascus to remove Assad and would have bombed Tehran to obliterate Iran. Of course thus far
he has done neither. Don't get me wrong, Trump is essentially part and parcel of the Zionist
cabal, but I don't quite think he's 1,000% under their thumb (not yet?).
I don't think the Zionist Power Configuration concocted Trump's policy of relative peace
with the Kremlin. Yes, the ZPC is extremely powerful in America, but Trump's position of
detente with Moscow seemed to be genuine. He caught way too much heat from the mass media for
it to be a stunt, it's almost torpedoed his presidency, and may eventually do just that. It
was actually one of the very few things Trump got right; peace with Russia, cordial relations
with the Kremlin are a no-brainer. A no-brainer to everyone but the
military-industrial-complex.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 10:59 pm
Russian. Missiles. Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to
fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive
toys are falling out of the sky in droves.
Whether it was "bird strike" or something more technological that recently grounded the
"mighty" Israeli F-35I, it's clear that America isn't eager to have those "Inherent Resolve"
jets, so busily not bombing ISIS, painted with Russian SAM radar.
Russia made it clear that Trump's Tomahawk Tweet in April 2017 was not only under totally
false pretenses. It had posed a threat to Russian troops and Moscow took extra measures to
protect them.
Russian deployment of the advanced S-400 system on the Syrian coast in Latakia also
impacts Israel's regional air superiority. The S-400 can track and shoot down targets some
400 kilometers (250 miles) away. That range encompasses half of Israel's airspace, including
Ben Gurion International Airport. In addition to surface-to-air missiles installations, Russian aircraft in Syria are
equipped with air-to-air missiles. Those weapons are part of an calculus of Israeli aggression in the region.
Of course, there's much more to say about this subject.
Surely, Drew, even the brain washed sheep otherwise known as the American public can't
seriously believe that their government armed head choppers in a bid to bring peace to the
region, can they?
Drew Hunkins , December 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Yup Mr. Wilson. It's too much cognitive dissonance for them to process. After all, we're
the exceptional nation, the beacon on the hill, the country that ONLY intervenes abroad when
there is a 'right to protect!' or it's a 'humanitarian intervention.' As Ken Burns would say:
Washington only acts "with good intentions. They're just sometimes misplaced." That's all.
The biggest global empire the world has ever seen is completely out of the picture.
mike k , December 8, 2017 at 5:34 pm
When evil people with evil intentions set out to do something in the world, the result is
evil. Like Libya, or Iraq, or Syria. Why do I call these people who killed millions for their
own selfish greed for power evil? If you have to ask that, then you just don't understand
what evil is – and you have a lot of company, because many people believe that evil
does not even exist! Such sheeple become the perfect victims of the evil ones, who are
destroying our world.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:36 am
Correction, Mike. The public do believe that evil exists but they sincerely think that
Putin and Russia are the evil ones'
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm
One of the ways to avoid recognizing evil is to ascribe it to inappropriate, incorrect
sources usually as a result of believing misleading propaganda. Another common maneuver is to
deny evil's presence in oneself, and believe it is always "out there". Or one can feel that
"evil" is an outmoded religious concept that is only used to hit at those one does not
like.
Mild - ly Facetious , December 8, 2017 at 6:22 pm
Oh Jerusalem: Requiem for the two-state solution (Gas masks required)
On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked
intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria
were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which
has now claimed half a million lives.
Marked "Top Secret" the NSA memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March
of 2013.
The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct
role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and
civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in
Syria.
Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and
Saudis coordinate their activities.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm
An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya
to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist
groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the
insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq,
which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence
would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world
entering into Iraqi Arena."
The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a
declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this
is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought
the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and
Iran support the regime."
The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and
Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality"
(State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and
specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply
channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged
through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of
Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply
lines.
The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against
Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started
working overtime.
The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical
incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First
Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:26 pm
In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA
report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as
Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision."
Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head
program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the
rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the
result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups
were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't
listening?"
Flynn: "I think the administration."
Hasan: "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"
Flynn: "I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it
was a willful decision."
Hasan: "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the
Muslim Brotherhood?"
Flynn: "It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."
Holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan read aloud
key passages such as, "there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the
opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did
the State Department soon after its release, Flynn did the opposite: he confirmed that while
acting DIA chief he "paid very close attention" to this report in particular and later added
that "the intelligence was very clear."
Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence
official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria
knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on
the Syrian regime:
Hasan: "In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups
[Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're
worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?"
Flynn: "I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the
accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be."
Flynn unambiguously confirmed that the 2012 DIA document served as source material in his
own discussions over Syria policy with the White House. Flynn served as Director of Intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)
during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda.
Flynn's admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked
groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature. The Pentagon's former highest ranking intelligence officer in charge of the hunt for Osama
bin Laden confessed that the United States directly aided the Al Qaeda terrorist legions of
Ayman al-Zawahiri beginning in at least 2012 in Syria.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael Flynn, former head of the US Defense
Intelligence Agency
"Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in
particular was seen at the White House where it was 'disregarded' because it 'didn't meet the
narrative' on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh that Defense Department (DoD) officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly
warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria -- warnings
which were met with 'enormous pushback.' Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments,
General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were
producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative
report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the
covert program in Syria.
"In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis, legendary DoD intelligence
officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained [ ] that the DIA memo was used as
a 'warning shot across the [administration's] bow.' Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA
Director Flynn had 'tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide
assistance to the Nusra group.' It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually
emerge as distinct 'ISIS' and 'Nusra' (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity
desiring a unified 'Islamic State.' The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as
'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple
Assad.
"In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a
coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo
were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an
opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase
in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying
themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham.
"Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed
that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led
ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the
commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact.
Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani,
himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation."
"one first needs to understand what has happened in Syria and other Middle Eastern
countries in recent years. The original plan of the US and Saudi Arabia (behind whom stood an
invisible Israel) was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his replacement with Islamic
fundamentalists or takfiris (Daesh, al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra).
"The plan involved the following steps:
sweep away a strong secular Arab state with a political culture, armed forces and
security services;
generate total chaos and horror in Syria that would justify the creation of Israel's
'security zone', not only in Golan Heights, but also further north;
start a civil war in Lebanon and incite takfiri violence against Hezbollah, leading
to them both bleeding to death and then create a "security zone", this time in Lebanon;
prevent the creation of a "Shiite axis" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon;
continue the division of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, establish an
independent Kurdistan and then to use them against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
give Israel the opportunity to become the unquestioned major player in the region and
force Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and everyone else to apply for permission from Israel
in order to implement any oil and gas projects;
gradually isolate, threaten, undermine and ultimately attack Iran with a wide
regional coalition, removing all Shiite centers of power in the middle East.
"It was an ambitious plan, and the Israelis were completely convinced that the United
States would provide all the necessary resources to see it through. But the Syrian government
has survived thanks to military intervention by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Daesh is almost
defeated and Iran and Hezbollah are so firmly entrenched in Syria that it has driven the
Israelis into a state of fear bordering on panic. Lebanon remains stable, and even the recent
attempt by the Saudis to abduct Prime Minister Saad Hariri failed.
"As a result, Saudi Arabia and Israel have developed a new plan: force the US to attack
Iran. To this end, the 'axis of good"' (USA-Israel-Saudi Arabia) was created, although this
is nothing new. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab States in the Persian Gulf have in the past
spoken in favor of intervention in Syria. It is well known that the Saudis invaded Bahrain,
are occupying it de facto, and are now at war in Yemen.
"The Israelis will participate in any plan that will finally split the Sunnis and Shiites,
turning the region into rubble. It was not by chance that, having failed in Lebanon, they are
now trying to do the same in Yemen after the murder of Ali Abdullah Saleh.
"For the Saudis and Israelis, the problem lies in the fact that they have rather weak
armed forces; expensive and high-tech, but when it comes to full-scale hostilities,
especially against a really strong opponent such as the Iranians or Hezbollah, the
'Israel/Wahhabis' have no chance and they know it, even if they do not admit it. So, one
simply needs to think up some kind of plan to force the Shiites to pay a high price.
"So they developed a new plan. Firstly, the goal is now not the defeat of Hezbollah or
Iran. For all their rhetoric, the Israelis know that neither they nor especially the Saudis
are able to seriously threaten Iran or even Hezbollah. Their plan is much more basic:
initiate a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene. Only today, the armed forces
of the United States have no way of winning a war with Iran, and this may be a problem. The
US military knows this and they are doing everything to tell the neo-cons 'sorry, we just
can't.' This is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not already taken place. From the
Israeli point of view this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: just force the
US to participate in a war they do not really need. As for the Iranians, the Israeli goal of
provoking an attack on Iran by the US is not to defeat Iran, but just to bring about
destruction – a lot of destruction [ ]
"You would need to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem, however, is that the Saudis and
the Israelis are close to this state. And they have proved it many times. So it just remains
to hope that Israel and the KSA are 'crazy', but 'not that crazy'."
The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to
Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the
suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no
one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection.
That it
conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no
dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's
comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course,
there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to
dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions".
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:24 pm
There WAS dissension within the Pentagon, not only about being in a coalition with the
Gulf States and Turkey in support of terrorist forces, but about allowing ISIS to invade
Ramadi, which CENTCOM exposed by making public that US forces watched it happen and did
nothing. In addition, CENTCOM and SOCOM publicly opposed switching sides in Yemen.
A senior commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), speaking on condition of anonymity,
scoffed at that argument. "The reason the Saudis didn't inform us of their plans," he said,
"is because they knew we would have told them exactly what we think -- that it was a bad
idea.
Military sources said that a number of regional special forces officers and officers at
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) argued strenuously against supporting the Saudi-led
intervention because the target of the intervention, the Shia Houthi movement -- which has
taken over much of Yemen and which Riyadh accuses of being a proxy for Tehran -- has been
an effective counter to Al-Qaeda.
The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That
is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the
CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to
AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has
been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces.
Thanks, I never read anything about it in the MSM (perhaps Aljazeera was an exception?).
However, this doesn't explain Gen. Flynn's tight relationship with Turkey's Erdogan who
clearly backed the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels to the point of shooting down a Russian jet
over Syria.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:57 am
The fighter shoot-down incident was before Erdogan's reversals in Syria policy.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm
I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the
Salafist Islamic state with alarm.
B. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE
INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA, AND
IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR
UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME,
WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).
D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
–1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN
MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE
JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION
WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN
REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed
that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian
leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in
control of the opposition. Turkey wasn't doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign
fighters and weapons across the border. 'If the American public saw the intelligence we
were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,' Flynn told me.
'We understood Isis's long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the
fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State
inside Syria.' The DIA's reporting, he said, 'got enormous pushback' from the Obama
administration. 'I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.'
j. D. D. , December 9, 2017 at 8:33 am
Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take
much to see why he was targeted. Ironically, the MSM is now going bananas over his support
for nuclear power in the region, which he had tied to desalination of sea water, toward
alleviating that crucial source of conflict in the area.
Abbybwood , December 9, 2017 at 11:24 pm
I believe Wesley Clark told Amy Goodman that he was handed the classified memo regarding
the U.S. overthrowing seven countries in five years starting with Iraq and ending with Iran,
in 2001, not 2006. He said it was right after 9/11 when he visited the Pentagon and Joint
Chief of Staff's office and was handed the memo.
jaycee , December 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm
The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back
to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on
9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of
Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" –
covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is
highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic.
One disturbing common feature across the years have been US sponsored airlifts of Islamist
fighters facing defeat, as seen in Afghanistan in late 2001 and just recently in eastern
Syria. In 2001, some of those fighters were relocated to North Africa, specifically Mali
– the roots of the Islamist insurgency which has destabilized that country over the
past few years. Where exactly the ISIS rebels assisted some weeks ago were relocated is yet
unknown.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:03 pm
Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the
marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create
internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US,
who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist
including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union.
Hence the birth of the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden, the rest is history.
j. D. D. , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
The article does not support the sub-headline. There is no evidence provided, nor is there
any evidence to be found, that Washington's policy in the region was motivated by anything
other than geopolitical objectives.
David G , December 9, 2017 at 7:25 am
I think that phrasing may point to the hand of editor Robert Parry. The incredible value
of CN notwithstanding, Parry in his own pieces (erroneously in my eyes) maintains a belief
that Obama somehow meant well. Hence the imputation of some "naïve" but ultimately
benevolent motive on the part of the U.S. genocidaires, as the whole Syria catastrophe got
going on Obama's watch.
Anon , December 9, 2017 at 9:14 am
The imputation of naivete works to avoid accusation of a specific strategy without
sufficient evidence.
Skip Scott , December 9, 2017 at 9:45 am
Although I am no fan of Obama, and most especially the continuation of the warmongering
for his 8 years, he did balk at the "Red line" when he found out he was being set up, and it
wasn't Assad who used chemical weapons. I don't think he "meant well" so much as he knew the
exact length of his leash. His bragging about going against "The Washington playbook" was of
course laughable; just as his whole hopey/changey thing was laughable with Citigroup picking
his cabinet.
All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no
business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of
humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in
destroying life on Earth.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare." What a load of old rubbish, naïve belief indeed. it is difficult to believe that
anyone could write this stuff with a straight face.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:37 pm
Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that
trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the
industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg.
Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm
That Gary Gambill character "outed" himself as a Zionist on September 4 of this year. He
appears to have mastered the propaganda associated with the breed. At the link see if
you can find any mention of the murders, thefts, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid of his
adopted nation. Blaming the victim may be this fellow's specialty. Sample:
The well-intentioned flocked in droves to the belief that Israeli- Palestinian peace was
achievable provided Israel made the requisite concessions, and that this would liberate the
Arab-Islamic world from a host of other problems allegedly arising from it: bloated
military budgets, intolerance of dissent, Islamic extremism, you name it.
Why tackle each of these problems head on when they can be alleviated all at once when
Israel is brought to heel? Twenty years later, the Middle East is suffering the
consequences of this conspiracy of silence.
The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars
and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate
people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have
been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well.
Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to
think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long
enough and it becomes the truth.
It takes courage to go against the flow of course and one can only hope that the Americans
are what they think they are: courageous and strong enough to hear their cherished truths
smashed, allow the scales before their eyes to fall and practise free speech and free
thought.
Theo , December 9, 2017 at 6:35 am
Thanks for this article and many others on this site.In Europe and in Germany you hardly
hear,read or see any of these facts and their connections.It seems to be only of marginal
interest.
The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major
incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large
collection of links for compiled evidence:
http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292
triekc , December 9, 2017 at 8:27 am
This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda
news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy
of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global
hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without
question, in the face of many unanswered questions.
Beginning in the 1990's, neocons who
would become W's cabinet, wrote detailed plans of military regime change in Middle East, but
stating they needed a "strong external shock to the United States -- a latter-day 'Pearl
Harbor", to get US sheeple to support increased militarism and global war. Few months after W
took office, and had appointed those war mongering neocons to positions of power, Bin Laden
(CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We
accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who
attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire
would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a
"conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated
Joe Tedesky , December 9, 2017 at 11:27 am
You commented on what I was thinking, and that was, 'remember when al Queda was our enemy
on 911'? So now that bin Laden is dead, and his al Queda now fights on our side, shouldn't
the war be over? And, just for the record who did attack us on 911?
So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of
money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war.
It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In
fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not
posting any comments here, either.
Knowing the Pentagon mentality they probably have an 'al Queda combat medal' to pin on the
terrorists chest. Sarcasm I know, but seriously is anything not within the realm of
believable when it comes to this MIC establishment?
Christene Bartels , December 9, 2017 at 8:53 am
Great article and spot on as far as the author takes it. But the world is hurtling towards
Armageddon so I'd like to back things up about one hundred years and get down to brass
tacks.
The fact of the matter is, the M.E. has never been at total peace but it has been nothing
but one colossal FUBAR since the Ottoman Empire was defeated after WWI and the Allied Forces
got their grubby, greedy mitts on its M.E. territories and all of that luscious black gold.
First up was the British Empire and France and then it really went nuclear (literally) in
1946 when Truman and the U.S. joined in the fun and decided to figure out how we could carve
out that ancient prime piece of real estate and resurrect Israel. By 1948 ..violà
..there she was.
So now here we sit as the hundred year delusion that we knew what the hell we were doing
comes crashing down around us. Seriously, whoever the people have been who thought that a
country with the historical perspective of a toddler was going to be able to successfully
manage and manipulate a region filled with people who are still tribal in perspective and are
still holding grudges and settling scores from five thousand years ago were complete and
total arrogant morons. Every single one of them. Up to the present moment.
Which gets me down to those brass tacks I alluded to at the beginning of my comment.
Delusional crusades lead by arrogant morons always, always, always end up as ash heaps. So, I
would suggest we all prepare for that rapidly approaching conclusion accordingly. For me,
that means hitting my knees.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Middle Eastern people are no more "tribal" or prone to holding grudges than any other
people. Middle Eastern people have exhibited and practiced peaceful and tolerant living
arrangements within several different contexts over the centuries. Iraq had a fairly thriving
middle class and the Syrians are a cultured and educated people.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 10:07 pm
Syrian society is constructed very much within the construct of close family ties and a
sense of a Syrian homeland. It is solely the business of the Syrian people to decide whether
the socialist Ba'ath government functions according to their own sense of realities and
standards. Some of those realities may include aspects of a necessitated national security
state (necessitated by CIA and Israeli subterfuge) that prompts shills to immediately
characterize the Assad government as "an authoritarian regime" and of course that's all you
need to know. Part of what pisses the West off about the Syrians is that they are so
competent, and that includes their intelligence and security services. One of the other parts
is the socialist example of government functioning in interests of the general population,
not selling out to vultures.
It bothers me that Mr. Lazare wrote: "Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in
this affair." Really? Well the Syrian government can hardly be blamed for the vile strategy
of using terrorist mercenaries to take or destroy a people's homeland–killing horrific
numbers of fathers, mothers, and children on the way to establish some kind of Wild West
control over Damascus that can then be manipulated for the typical elite deviances. What was
purposely planned and visited upon the Syrian people has had human consequences that were
known and disregarded by the planners. It has been and continues to be a grave crime against
our common humanity that should be raised to the roof of objection! People like Gambill
should be excoriated for their crass appraisal of human costs .and for their contrived and
twisted rationalizations and deceits. President Assad recently gave an interview to teleSUR
that is worth a listen. He talks about human costs with understanding for what he is talking
about. Gambill doesn't give a damn.
BASLE , December 9, 2017 at 10:46 am
From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in
the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy
for the Realm".
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:08 am
Yes, Israel is the cut-out or fence for US politicians stealing campaign money from the
federal budget.
US policy is that of the bribery sources and nothing else. And it believes that to be
professional competence.
For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack
all who disagree.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare."
Lazare makes the case very well about our amoral foreign policy but I think he errs in
saying our aim was to "transform the region for the better." Recent history, going back to
Afghanistan shows a very different goal, to defeat our enemies and the enemies of our allies
with little concern for the aftermath. Just observing what has happened to the people where
we supported extremists is evidence enough.
Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men. We hope the conscience of our nation is bothered by
our behavior but we know that is not true, and we sleep very well, thank you.
Marilyn Vogt-Downey , December 9, 2017 at 11:18 am
I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US
imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy
entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand
that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the
next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No!
US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate
the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private
profit.
There is ample evidence–see the Brookings Institute study among many
others–that the Gulf monarchies–flunkies of US imperialism–who "host"
dozens of US military bases in the region, some of them central to US war
strategy–initiated and nourished and armed and financed the "jihadi armies" in Syria
AND Libya AND elsewhere; they did not do this on their own. The US government–the
executive committee of the US ruling class–does not naively support the Gulf monarchies
because it doesn't know any better! Washington (following British imperialism) organized,
established and backed these flunky regimes. They are autocratic, antediluvian regimes,
allowing virtually civil rights, with no local proletariat to speak of, no popular base. They
are no more than sheriffs for imperialism in that region of the world, along with the Zionist
state of Israel, helping imperialism do the really dirty work.
Look at the evidence. Stop the totally foolish assessment that the US government spends
all this money on a war machine just to "naively" blunder into wars that level entire
nations–and is not taking on destruction of the entire continent of Africa to eliminate
any obstacles to its domination.
No! That is foolish and destructive. Unless we look in the face what is going on–the
US government since its "secret" intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, has
recruited, trained, armed, funded and relied on jihadi armies to unseat regimes and
destabilize and destroy populations and regimes the US government wants to overthrow, and
destroy, any that could potentially develop into an alternative model of nationalist,
bourgeois industrial development on any level.
Wake up!!! The evidence is there. There is no reason to bumble and bungle along as if we
are in the dark.
Randal Marlin , December 9, 2017 at 11:26 am
Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government
to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's
enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy
states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria
and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking.
The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic
consequences.
Behind all this is the thinking that the survival of Israel outweighs anything else in any
global ethical calculus.
Those who don't accept this moral premise but who believe in supporting the survival of
Israel have their work cut out for them.
This work would be made easier if the U.S. population saw clearly what was going on, instead
of being preoccupied with salacious sexual misconduct stories or other distractions.
Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm
A Russian interceptor has been scrambled to stop a rogue US fighter jet from actively
interfering with an anti-terrorist operation, the Russian Defense Ministry said. It also
accused the US of provoking close encounters with the Russian jets in Syria.
A US F-22 fighter was preventing two Russian Su-25 strike aircraft from bombing an
Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) base to the west of the Euphrates November 23, according to
the ministry. The ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov described the
episode as yet another example of US aircraft attempts to prevent Russian forces from
carrying out strikes against Islamic State.
"The F-22 launched decoy flares and used airbrakes while constantly maneuvering [near
the Russian strike jets], imitating an air fight," Konashenkov said. He added that the US
jet ceased its dangerous maneuvers only after a Russian Su-35S fighter jet joined the two
strike planes.
If this story is true, then it illustrates a number of things. First, the US is still
providing ISIS air cover. Second, either the F-22 pilot or his commander is dumber than dirt.
The F-22 may be a fine airplane, but getting into a contest with an equally fine non-stealth
airplane at eyeball distances means throwing away every advantage of the super-expensive
stealth.
Israel obtained operational nuclear weapons capability by 1967, with the mass production
of nuclear warheads occurring immediately after the Six-Day War. In addition to the Israeli
nuclear arsenal, Israel has offensive chemical and biological warfare stockpiles.
Israel, the Middle East's sole nuclear power, is not a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 2015, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security estimated that
Israel had 115 nuclear warheads. Outside estimates of Israel's nuclear arsenal range up to
400 nuclear weapons.
Israeli nuclear weapons delivery mechanisms include Jericho 3 missiles, with a range of
4,800 km to 6,500 km (though a 2004 source estimated its range at up to 11,500 km), as well
as regional coverage from road mobile Jericho 2 IRBMs.
Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear capability using
submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli
Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.
The Israeli Air Force has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering
tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at long distances using conformal fuel tanks and
supported by their aerial refueling fleet of modified Boeing 707's.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, fled to the United Kingdom and
revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program and explained the purposes of
each building, also revealing a top-secret underground facility directly below the
installation.
The Mossad, Israel's secret service, sent a female agent who lured Vanunu to Italy, where
he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and smuggled to Israel aboard a freighter. An Israeli court
then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to eighteen
years imprisonment.
At the time of Vanunu's kidnapping, The Times reported that Israel had material for
approximately 20 hydrogen bombs and 200 fission bombs by 1986. In the spring of 2004, Vanunu
was released from prison, and placed under several strict restrictions, such as the denial of
a passport, freedom of movement limitations and restrictions on communications with the
press. Since his release, he has been rearrested and charged multiple times for violations of
the terms of his release.
Safety concerns about this 40-year-old reactor have been reported. In 2004, as a
preventive measure, Israeli authorities distributed potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets
to thousands of residents living nearby. Local residents have raised concerns regarding
serious threats to health from living near the reactor.
According to a lawsuit filed in Be'er Sheva Labor Tribunal, workers at the center were
subjected to human experimentation in 1998. According to Julius Malick, the worker who
submitted the lawsuit, they were given drinks containing uranium without medical supervision
and without obtaining written consent or warning them about risks of side effects.
In April 2016 the U.S. National Security Archive declassified dozens of documents from
1960 to 1970, which detail what American intelligence viewed as Israel's attempts to
obfuscate the purpose and details of its nuclear program. The Americans involved in
discussions with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and other Israelis believed the country was
providing "untruthful cover" about intentions to build nuclear weapons.
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 6:38 pm
The machinations of those seeking to gain advantages for themselves by hurting others, are
truly appalling. If we fail to name evil for what it is, then we fail as human beings.Those
who look the other way as their country engages in an organized reign of terror, are
complicit in that enormous crime.
Den Lille Abe , December 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm
The path the US has chosen since the end of WWII has been over dead bodies. In the name of
"security", bringing "Freedom" and "Democracy" and complete unconstrained greed it has
trampled countless nations into piles of rubble.
To say it is despised or loathed is an overwhelming understatement. It is almost universally
hated in the third world. Rightly.
Bringing this monstrosity to a halt is a difficult task, and probably cannot be done
militarily without a nuclear war, economically could in the end have the same outcome, then
how?
Easy! Ruin its population. This process has started, long ago.
The decline in the US of health, general wealth, nutrition, production, education, equality,
ethics and morals is already showing as cracks in the fabrics of the US.
A population of incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns, in a
country with a crumbling infrastructure, full of environmental disasters is 21 st century for
most Americans.
In all the areas I mentioned the US is going backwards compared to most other countries.
So the monster will come down.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:20 pm
I think you are being a little hard on the incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies,
armed to teeth with guns
I am not sure who is more loathsome the evangelicals who were supporting the Bush / Cheney
cabal murderous wars until the bitter end or the liberal intelligentsia careerist
cheerleaders for Obama and Hilary's Wars in Iraq and Syria, who also dont give a damn about
another Arab country being destroyed and sold into slavery as long as Hillary gets elected.
At least with the former group, you can chalk it up to a lack of education.
Linda Wood , December 10, 2017 at 1:52 am
This is possibly the most intelligent and hopeful discussion I have read since 9/11. It
says that at least some Americans do see that we have a fascist cell in our government. That
is the first step in finding a way to unplug it. Best wishes to all of you who have written
here. We will find a way to put war out of business.
Barbara van der Wal-Kylstra , December 10, 2017 at 2:46 am
I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan,
with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to
attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame
the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r?
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:18 am
Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived
for the zionists.
Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had
to be opposed.
The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists
for Mideast wars.
Luutzen , December 10, 2017 at 9:15 am
Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian
pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total
destruction. Easy.
mike k , December 10, 2017 at 11:05 am
The US Military is part of the largest terrorist organization on Earth. For the super rich
and powerful rulers of that US Mafia, the ignorant religious fanatics and other tools of
Empire are just pawns in their game of world domination and universal slavery for all but
themselves. These monsters of evil delight in profiting from the destruction of others; but
their insatiable greed for more power will never be satisfied, and will become the cause of
the annihilation of every living thing – including themselves. But like other sold out
human addicts, at this point they don't really care, and will blindly pursue their nightmare
quest to the very end – and perhaps they secretly hope that that final end of
everything will at last quench their burning appetite for blood and gold.
Joe Tedesky , December 10, 2017 at 11:12 am
I'm leaving a link to a very long David Swanson article, where Mr Swanson goes into quite
a lot of detail to how the U.S. wages war.
What's interesting of course is how not just Washington, but much of the 'left' also
cheered on the jihadists.
Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and
'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant
Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has
been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just
like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total
disgrace?
It's interesting to reread this two years article by
Here is an extremely shred observation: "I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us." ..."
"... the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East. ..."
"... the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us." ..."
"... Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991? ..."
"... The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe. ..."
"... Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States. ..."
"... I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster. ..."
"... "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." ..."
"... the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl. ..."
"... In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome: ..."
"... In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. ..."
"... "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview . "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
"... In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said. ..."
"... That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out. ..."
"... As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress. ..."
"... Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. ..."
"... Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam? ..."
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his
neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear
that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."
As I recently reviewed a YouTube
eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out
at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become
neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.
While Clark's public exposé largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted
being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led
plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international
law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and – in the aftermath of World War II – condemned
past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.
But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged
to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."
That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the
neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for
war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?
The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence
in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies"
are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk
deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear
confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."
Putin's Comment
The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what
Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse
of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those
who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.
But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence
of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the
receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.
If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century,
it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s
and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier
years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.
I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Visiting Wolfowitz
In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991.
President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam
Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.
According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is
that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those
old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe
they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting – in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon – not to mention
fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to
cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."
True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in
Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West – barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey
wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done
in the past.
An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped
by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join
the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the
neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.
A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio
in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How
War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth,
behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.
Israeli/Neocon Preferences
But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments,
like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin
over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's
throats – a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for
the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among
Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.
In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013,
we called attention to an uncommonly candid
report
about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren
on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons
to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.
Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naïve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very
little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently
forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear
in what Rudoren wrote.
In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly,
that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:
"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory
by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for
a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic
thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"
Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement
– overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing
each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.
Favoring Jihadis
But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists
from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States
Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored
the Sunni extremists over Assad.
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime
as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in
an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys
who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel
would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the
continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail,
let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.
Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the
Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the
nations" of the Middle East.
That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while
some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable
influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.
As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated,
politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match
for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.
Corker Uncorked
Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, divulged some
details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst
moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented)
with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.
Corker complained, "In essence – I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical – we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course – especially
in Congress – to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without
the United States jumping into another Middle East war.
It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest
of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.
At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president
in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely
to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq – and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he
endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.
Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no
doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite.
If you look at the role
of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players
with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today
and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser
counterparts around the world.
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the
horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they
are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to
do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals
but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.
This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power
elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their
ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the
name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign
powers."
The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt
has done so for many, many centuries.
... ... ...
From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control
of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on
the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose
existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of
the government or private life they were connected.
This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty,
a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger
and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.
Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this
dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?
... ... ...
Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out,
go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject
defeat for the other.
Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the
Gulf War in Iraq.
... ... ...
This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism
and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare,
economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically
designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous
loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of
war equipment.
One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide
comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities
of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.
This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders
at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John
F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen,
and religious leaders.
The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions
of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it
is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.
It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined
generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.
Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service
with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against
all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive
and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage,
and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.
The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence
and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created
to be; however, it does not exist.
Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend
to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act.
As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that
National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3
Heritage Foundation is just a neocon swamp filled with "national security parasites". What you can expect from them ?
Notable quotes:
"... A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." ..."
"... These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. ..."
"... No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative." ..."
According to recent
reports the Heritage Foundation, clearly the most established and many would say politically influential conservative think tank
in Washington, is considering David Trulio, Lockheed Martin vice president and longtime lobbyist for the defense industry, to be
its next president. While Heritage's connection to Washington's sprawling national security industry is already well-established,
naming Trulio as its president might be seen as gilding the lily.
If anything, reading this report made me more aware of the degree to which the "conservative policy community" in Washington depends
on the whims and interests of particular donors.
And this relationship is apparently no longer something to be concealed or embarrassed by. One can now be open about being in
the pocket of the defense industry. Trulio's potential elevation to Heritage president at what we can assume will be an astronomical
salary, will no doubt grease the already well-oiled pipeline of funds from major contractors to this "conservative" foundation, which
already operates with an
annual disclosed budget of almost $100 million.
A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, "
Maintaining
the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring
a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano
wrote " Five Steps
to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon"
for buying new weaponry. In 2016,
Heritage made the case for
several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an
encouraging start."
These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's
belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies
somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded
in return. Incidentally, the 2009 position paper seems to be directing the government to throw more taxpayer dollars to Boeing
than to its competitor Lockheed. But it seems both defense giants have landed a joint contract this year to produce a new submersible
for the Navy, so it may no longer be necessary to pick sides on that one at least. No doubt both corporations will continue to
look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding.
Although one needn't reduce everything to dollars and cents, if we're looking at the issues Heritage and other likeminded foundations
are likely to push today, it's far more probable they'll be emphasizing the national security state rather than, say, opposition
to gay marriage or the defense of traditional gender roles. There's lots more money to be made advocating for the former rather than
the latter. In May 2013, Heritage
sponsored a formal debate between "two conservatives" and "two liberals" on the issue of defense spending, with Heritage and
National Review presenting the "conservative" side. I wondered as I listened to part of this verbal battle why is was considered
"conservative" to call for burdening American taxpayers with massive increases in the purchase of Pentagon weaponry and planes that
take
17 years to get off the ground.
Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to
keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have
the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily
the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative."
In any event, Mr. Trulio won't have to travel far if he takes the Heritage helm. He and his corporation are already ensconced
only a few miles away from Heritage's Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, if the information provided by Lockheed Martin is correct.
It says: "Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately
98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment
of advanced technology systems, products and services." A company like that can certainly afford to underwrite a think tank -- if
the price is right.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five
years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen
books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . His books have been translated into multiple
languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.
"... I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly skeptical is her description of 'the British' as 'our other best friend in the world'. This may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing 'neoconservative' and 'neoliberal' policies the leaderships of both major parties have drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already turning antisemitic, and may become much more so. ..."
"The biggest element of US-Israeli military-technical cooperation is military aid. Israel is
the main recipient of US military aid in the form of grants and direct deliveries of equipment
on advantageous terms. Since 1976, Israel has been the biggest recipient of annual US aid, and
since 1987 of US military aid. In addition, by some estimates Israel receives $1 billion a year
in the form of charity contributions, and a similar sum through short- and long-term funds. US
provide aid to Israel in various forms: Foreign Military Sales, Direct Commercial Sales, Excess
Defense Articles, and also funds to support research and development. Moreover, the Foreign
Military Financing program implemented by the US Department of State has become, over the
years, the largest of all such programs implemented by the US. One should note that, for
example, out of $5.7 billion budgeted for this program in 2014, $3.1 went to Israel, In other
words, Israel obtains more military assistance through this program than the rest of the world
combined. This sum does not include the financing for Israel's ABM programs, which are
estimated at another $500 million. Unlike other programs, FMF allows Israel to spend up to 25%
of US-provided funding on own military programs. All other countries receiving military aid
must spend it only on US weapons and equipment." SF
-----------
IMO it is debatable as to which side is the donkey in the US/Israeli military relationship.
In my experience as the head DoD liaison to IDF general staff intelligence (7 years worth),
"what's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs as well." I was an SES then with the
spigot to intelligence largesse in my hand and I found them to be completely bloody minded
about sharing information with the US. To get anything from them was like pulling molars
without anesthetic.
I don't doubt that US government gifts to Israel benefit American defense industry, but
these gifts come right out of the pocket of the American taxpayer and what do we get for it? Is
it salved conscience for FDR's unwillingness to open the floodgates to European Jewry during
WW2? Perhaps that is so or is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC
works upon Congress?
Israeli forces are in no way at the disposition of the US. They are not assets of American
policy. Israel sees itself as an self-defining island in the world and the only real home for
Jews. As such it thinks it cannot afford to be sentimental about any predominately gentile
state, in other words, all others.
And then, there is the repeated phenomenon of Israel either skirting the provisions of
proprietary agreements about equipment sales or shared R&D or simply outright violations of
these agreements in sales to third parties.
No, there is no doubt, we are the ass. Hee Haw! pl
Go to Breitbart or other Zionist supporting websites and ask the same question. Only frame it
differently i.e. 'When will Israel start fighting it's own wars?'
Once Israel has sucked America dry . . got them in a strangle hold in National debt, bought
out all Corporations that are profitable and useful for their cause . . and all the time
Americans believe Israel is doing them a favour in the Middle East.
Remember that's what the Russians believed, the British, the German, the French, the Arabs
& the Turks believed. Now its China's turn . . now their done with the U.S. . . how long
or how deep in debt must you go before you wake up America and how many Goyim children must
die for these Talmudists. Work it out . .
thanks pat.. good quick overview from you who have worked on the inside enough to get a
better glimpse of the dynamic. when will this insane relationship stop?
FDR's unwillingness? According to Alfred M. Lilienthal ("The Zionist Connection. What Price
Peace?", pp. 35 f.), it was the Jewish lobby that prevented a legislation enabling the
immigration of the doomed.
The Zionist Connection is a wonderful eye opening book that completely turned my thinking
around when I first read it 39 years ago. Highly recommended.
Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world
represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism.
Predatory rent seeking minorities, protected by the liberal mind virus, leveraging the power
structure for their own gain.
And its not limited to just Jews. Even whites who originated further away from the largely
northern European founding stock of the US play their little games. Few know concentrations
of Poles in key swing states like Ohio have extracted significant concessions from various
presidential campaigns on the matter of Eastern European foreign policy. This was why when
unapologetic WASPs ruled the United States, they were highly selective of who could come in,
and ruthlessly stamped out any value systems and cultural traits distinct from new world
Anglo norms. America was never a 'melting pot' as a London based Jew tried to claim in the
early 20th century in his hack play. It was an Anglo run forge which inducted selected
adjacent groups who could be assimilated into to the whig Anglo tradition.
"Zionist shenanigans with the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world
represent yet another stark warning against the dangers of diversity and multiculturalism."
I
believe diversity and multicultuarlism may be a superior counterbalance to your 'rent seeking
minorities', Perhaps this nation needs some new blood to help 'drain the swamp'.
Not to mention the blatant theft of US nuclear materials in support of their nuclear weapons
program.
Not to mention they are always on the FBI's list of the countries most engaged in
espionage against the US. The FBI was up in arms over the fact that Israeli firms were operating the US
communications eavesdropping equipment until they got caught selling intercept information to
California drug dealers.
Israel has learned that the best way to spy on other countries is to be the country
selling those countries all the surveillance equipment.
Not to mention Israel's hacking ability. The latest Russiagate nonsense involved the
Kaspersky Labs, an infosec company, being hacked by Israel who then claimed Kaspersky was
connected to Russian intelligence. This resulted in the US banning Kaspersky products inside
the US government and severely hurt Kaspersky's business model.
Not to mention their agents knew all about 9/11 prior to the attack and waited until a
couple weeks before to mention it to US intelligence, as a means of CYA. Their agents
actually filmed the attack from New Jersey while high-fiving themselves.
Not to mention they were involved in "false flag" terrorist attacks against Western
targets until they got caught at it.
Not to mention the USS Liberty, a flagrant attack on a US intelligence ship with the
expressed purpose of killing every US sailor on board.
The list of Israeli aggression against the US is long and sickening. It should be
considered treason to support that country in any way.
So is our U.S. becoming a more police state atmosphere like Israel? The same Israel where
censorship and the state message rule the day, seems is being passed onto our U.S.. U.S.
taxpayer funded startup GOOGLE is now on-board to become America's censor. Was British Author
George Orwell looking into a crystal ball when he created the writing "1984"? Hmmm..
Why not let the American people do their own censoring, where if they don't like the
internet message (RT,Sputnik, Russian news), they can change the subject or move on to
something they are more interested in.
I'd say the parasitical more than the symbiosis is the meme.
America's police being trained in Israeli tactics of force upon the unarmed, the Israeli
tactics to dehumanize is now percolating within U.S. law enforcement tactics and employment
methods, is also spreading to thought and message control.
I believe Google has been doing this for quite some time. The information is there but you
must make an effort to find it, and assess its factualness. The only thing Schmidt is doing
is prioritizing Western propaganda over Russian propaganda.
This was one of the scariest things I noticed traveling in Israel/Palestine around 2006-2008.
Just about every draconian security measure was used as part of daily life. They've since
become common place in the US now all as a result of the same need to "fight terrorism."
That US police forces send delegations to Israel to learn about policing tactics are also
worrisome.
Tail truly wags the dog here. Maybe not overall but certainly as far as foreign
policy/middle east/constant need for an enemy are concerned.
Focuses on the end times, Israel and now the Saudis, not necessarily in any order of
importance. And damn India - they've cancelled a $500 million missile deal with Israel .
Smart policy move from India? Leave Israel wanting to get back into India's good graces with
some extra technology transfers. My impression is that India plays Israel well on arms tech.
Get as much as they can with as little in return as possible. Don't the US sometimes put
their foot down and blocks an arms deal.
"India has become one of Israel's largest buyers of military hardware, with annual defense
deals worth over $1b.
"Usually, all the [defense] deals between Israel and India included some technology
transfer, which India could not get anywhere else in Europe or America," said Shapir. "As
long as we can supply better technology on better terms, India will welcome it." He added
that relations could deteriorate again, due to India's strong ties to Iran and much of the
Arab world."
A long time ago I worked at Collins in Cedar Rapids in the GPS group. My boss at the time was
head of R&D. He told me that when the Israelis came to town they were almost impossible
to work with since they were constantly trying to steal intellectual property and classified
material. Other foreign nationals would occasionally try something but they never tried to
get away anything near what the Israelis did. As I'm sure that many of your readers would be
aware of GPS is crucial to communication security.
Never forget that a Palestinian and an Israeli put their pants on the same way that you do.
That's the way I try to look at the inhabitants of this world. In my heart I'm hoping that
most Israelis would agree
They will suck the last drop of blood from USA, then they will move out to better heavens....
They have already started moving lots and lots of funds and assets out of the USA...., for in
their schemes, the US is nearing a breaking point to the worst...
The two major problems your country faces as an independent country are Saudi money, and Gods
chosen people (according to the bible).
Saudi money is corruption legalised.
Israel - many people of influence in the US seem to give their loyalty to Israel rather than
the US, for I guess religious reasons.
Be interesting to see how much Saudi "sponsorship" money flows into the US after the MBS
corruption enquiries. Israel is a harder nut to crack. A bit of chemo in the US required?
When I claimed that Nato was little more than the Rothschild Army I was lambasted here. If
the US military, which has control of Nato, is the ass of the Donkey, then what does that
make Nato? Somehow every Nato secretary ends up being a Zionist/Neocon too, so the control is
clearly complete.
In 1917, the Balfour declaration was addressed to Lord Rothschild, who simultaneously was
instigating the Russian Revolution and the murder of his sworn enemy, the czar.
The point here is that Israel, more than anything else, is a creation of the House of
Rothschild and during the decades of its creation there were numerous Jews who were rabidly
opposed to the false claims of biblical justification. This is one reason why there are
dozens of fake claims in the Zionist dominated newspapers of "6,000,000 dead Jews" starting
in the pogroms of the late 1890's until they finally found a holocaust that they could make
stick to use to justify land theft and extortion.
And extortion is the point here. Not only the US is being extorted for a few billion every
year, other countries are forced to make massive extortion payoff's too. Switzerland and
Sweden were forced to pay billions due to their having traded with Germany during the war and
having accepted "nazi gold". Merkel famously gifted diesel-electric submarines to Israel, on
top of the tribute that Germany still pays yearly.
There are dozens of ways that Israel, and jews in general, extort money from gentiles in
forms of special jew taxes. One of these is the OU kosher certification which many
manufacturers are forced to provide.
The Lavi fighter saga epitomizes the perverse nature of US-Israeli relations. The US offered
over a billion dollars for its R&D, 250 million to be spent in Israel. The primary
beneficiary was IAI a company which illegally tried to sell its Kfir jet to Peru in direct
competition with Northrup, illegal because the Kfir's GE J-79 engines came free of charge and
with an End User Certificate preventing their re-export. Informed of this Congress responded
by increasing the Israeli largess to 450 million.
In the end Israel decided not to build the
plane but sold the plans to the Chinese whose J-10 aircraft, their first home-grown state of
the art fighter, while not a part for part copy does bear a striking resemblance to the Lavi.
Both the British and American aviation press claim the J-10 could not have been built as
quickly and cheaply as it was without Israeli help. With friends like these .....
>is it the brute force arm twisting and virtual bribery that AIPAC works upon Congress?
Mostly it is about the bribery. To some degree it is about the blackmail. If Hillary gets
convicted for uranium - or pizza trafficking - perhaps the extent of corruption will become
widely known, and perhaps the populace will be moved to wrath.
The notes from the recent speech given by Shoshana Bryen at the American Zionist
Conference which were published under the title 'The U.S. Military as a Zionist Organisation'
are I think very interesting – thanks to 'b' for the link.
I am not in a position to gauge whether the confidence she expresses in the continued
enthusiasm of the American military for Israel is well-founded. What makes me slightly
skeptical is her description of 'the British' as 'our other best friend in the world'. This
may still be largely true, if one looks solely at the élite level, but in pursuing
'neoconservative' and 'neoliberal' policies the leaderships of both major parties have
drastically undermined their own legitimacy. To an extent the resulting backlash is already
turning antisemitic, and may become much more so.
It was also interesting that Ms Bryen relied extensively on the views of our former Chief
Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, given that he has little understanding of the attitudes of people
in this country outside the narrow circles in which it appears he moves.
In September 2016, he gave a speech to the European Parliament entitled 'The Mutating
Virus: Understanding Antisemitism', in which it was claimed that: 'Antisemitism is not about
Jews. It is about anti-Semites. It is about people who cannot accept responsibility for their
own failures and have instead to blame someone else.'
Seems to me the Jewish predicament is that they number 15 million in a world with 1.3 and 1.4
billion Indians and Chinese respectively. Am guessing this is experienced as a threat to
their post-ww2 intellectual, cultural, and economic supremacy.
All living organisms at all levels of organization have survival strategies for overcoming
disadvantage. See Darwin and/or Adler and/or Clausewitz and/or Kautilya for different but
similar -- variations on a theme -- descriptions of how that goes.
as usual, your analysis is provocative and I mostly agree, but you say
"to dismiss the convictions of people who think that Jews have too much influence as
scapegoating is, again, simply silly. The wrong Jews do."
In my view, Jews do have too much influence over the government of the USA, but it is NOT
just a matter of "the wrong jews" as you state.
Consider the Supreme Court, where 3 of 9 justices are jews, also noteworthy that 5 are
catholic. Gorsuch is the 9th, and he was raised catholic but became an episcopalian. Until
Gorsuch was appointed, there were no protestants on the Court, none, zero.
And of course there are no atheists, or muslims or buddhists or hindus.
I do not fault the jewish members of the Court, rather I ask for analysis of how this small
minority of perhaps 2% came to occupy one third of the seats of the Court.
And catholics with 22% of the population, hold 5 of 9 seats on the Court.
Perhaps the answer is there are no intelligent articulate protestants in the USA?? I don't
think that is the answer.
"... "Consistent with the Trump Administration's stated intention of pushing back against Iran's increasingly malign behavior throughout
the Middle East, American policymakers urgently need to rebuild credibility and positions of strength by contesting Iran's rising influence
across the region. Most urgently, the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime
in Syria. Time is of the essence, as Iranian-backed forces recently have retaken nearly all the country, save lands liberated from Islamic
State (IS) by the U.S.-led coalition. These, and any further, strategic gains threaten to entrench Tehran as the arbiter of postwar
Syria and consolidate its control of a "land bridge" connecting Iran directly to Lebanon and Hezbollah." ..."
"... "The annual Generals and Admirals Program to the Middle East, in which recently retired American generals and admirals are
invited to visit Israel with JINSA to meet the top echelon of the Israeli military and political leadership, ensures that the American
delegation is well briefed on the security concerns of Israel, as well as the key role Israel plays as a friend and ally of the U.S.
To date, JINSA has taken more than 400 retired officers to Israel, many of whom serve on JINSA's Board of Advisors." ..."
There are only a couple of dozen hardcore BORG-ists (to use Col Lang's useful
description) trolling for war against Iran, but they are irrationally consistent. The names are familiar: Ledeen, Richard Perle,
Woolsey, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), etc. Now, enter JINSA.
This week, another piece of the drive for war against Iran has manifested itself on the pages of the Jewish Institute for National
Security for America (JINSA) www.jinsa.org , with a November 20, 2017 report,
Countering Iranian Expansion in Syria.
It says:
"Consistent with the Trump Administration's stated intention of pushing back against Iran's increasingly malign behavior throughout
the Middle East, American policymakers urgently need to rebuild credibility and positions of strength by contesting Iran's rising
influence across the region. Most urgently, the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by
the Assad regime in Syria. Time is of the essence, as Iranian-backed forces recently have retaken nearly all the country, save lands
liberated from Islamic State (IS) by the U.S.-led coalition. These, and any further, strategic gains threaten to entrench Tehran
as the arbiter of postwar Syria and consolidate its control of a "land bridge" connecting Iran directly to Lebanon and Hezbollah."
The heart of Israeli penetration of the U.S. national security sector has long been JINSA -- Jewish Institute for National Security
of America (JINSA). JINSA was founded in 1973, immediately following the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli War, to assure U.S. military
support for all future Israeli wars. JINSA 's mission was to recruit large numbers of recently retired U.S. military officers to the
Israeli cause, by, among other techniques, sponsoring all-expenses-paid junkets to Israel, or exchange programs at Israeli military
academies. It is long term. It is steady. It keeps the same core directors. It is not distracted. It is a mostly-overlooked component
of the Israel Lobby.
Today, the JINSA website boasts:
"The annual Generals and Admirals Program to the Middle East, in which recently retired American generals and admirals are
invited to visit Israel with JINSA to meet the top echelon of the Israeli military and political leadership, ensures that the American
delegation is well briefed on the security concerns of Israel, as well as the key role Israel plays as a friend and ally of the U.S.
To date, JINSA has taken more than 400 retired officers to Israel, many of whom serve on JINSA's Board of Advisors."
JINSA's board is a hotbed of neo-cons, some of whom have been investigated for spying for the Israeli state. Board members include
former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Steven D. Bryen, former National Security consultant Michael Ledeen, Bush-Cheney's director
of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. Steven Bryen's wife, Shoshanna
Bryen was long time executive director of JINSA, involved in profiling likely military officers to be recruited to the junkets to
Israel.
In 2001, after the 9/11 attack, JINSA's own website boasted of its dedication to the primacy of the US-Israeli relationship above
all else. "Only one think tank puts the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship first -- JINSA."
On Sept. 12, 2001 JINSA issued a call for precisely the kind of U.S. war against the Arab world that has embroiled the U.S. in
endless wars in the region. At that time, JINSA said the response to the 911 attack had to be larger than an attack on Al Qaeda's
bases in Afghanistan: "The countries harboring and training [terrorists] include not just Afghanistan -- but Iraq, Iran, Pakistan,
Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria, friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt."
Get a score card, and see whether JINSA's interests have taken hold: Invasion of Iraq (2003), Regime change in Iran (still trying
and 2017, the Number One priority), Syria (ongoing war to unseat Assad), Sudan (country divided), Libya (2011 overthrow of Qadaffi
and failed state), Palestinian Authority (chaos and Jewish settlement expansion especially since the 2006 Hamas election victory),
Egypt (two revolutions in two years, absolute economic desperation). Not targeted so far: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria (kind of).
No wonder Saudi Arabia's Salman team is salivating over making alliances with Netanyahu.
Israel hosted the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism way back in the summer of 1979 where the foundations of the
War On Terror were set, although in that day the ultimate sponsor of international terrorism was said to be the Soviet Union.
"The mortal danger to Western security and democracy posed by the worldwide scope of this international terrorist movement required
an appropriate worldwide anti-terrorism offensive, consisting of the mutual coordination of Western military intelligence services."
This conference was hosted by Netanyahu and featured numerous high level Israeli politicians and military figures, as well
as Americans such as Henry Jackson, George HW Bush, Richard Pipes, Ray Cline, and right-leaning officials from Britain and France.
"US, Israeli and British elites were actively constructing 'international terrorism' as an ideology..." (see Nafeez Ahmed, War
On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism, pp 3-6)
Yesterday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson swore into office a new Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Dr. A. Wess Mitchell became the Trump
Administration's top
diplomat for Europe , "responsible for diplomatic relations with 50 countries in Europe and
Eurasia, and with NATO, the EU and the OSCE."
Readers will recall that the position was most recently held during the Obama Administration
by Kagan family neocon, Victoria Nuland, who was key catalyst and cookie provider for the
US-backed coup overthrowing the elected government in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland's virulently
anti-Russia position was a trademark of the neocon persuasion and she put ideology into action
by " midwifing ,"
in her own words, an illegal change of government in Ukraine.
It was Nuland's coup that laid the groundwork for a precipitous decay in US/Russia
relations, as Washington's neocons peddled the false line that "Russia invaded Ukraine" to
cover up for the fact that it was the US government that had meddled in Ukrainian affairs. The
coup was bloody and divisive ,
resulting in a de-facto split in the country that continues to the day. Ukraine did not
flourish as a result of this neocon scheme, but has in fact been in
economic free-fall since the US government installed its preferred politicians into
positions of power.
You don't hear much about Ukraine these days because the neocons hate to talk about their
failures. But the
corruption of the US-installed government has crippled the country, extreme nationalist
elements that make up the core of the post-coup elites have imposed a new education law so
vicious toward an age-old Hungarian population stuck inside arbitrarily re-drawn post-WWI
borders that the Hungarian government has blocked
Ukraine's further integration into NATO, and a new "Maidan" protest has steadily
gathered steam in Kiev despite Western cameras being uninterested this time.
Fortunately Donald Trump campaigned on and was elected to improve relations with Russia and
end the Obama Administration's neocon-fueled launch of a new Cold War. He raised eyebrows when
he directly challenged
the neocon shibboleth -- amplified by the mainstream media -- that Russia was invading
Ukraine. But candidate Trump really blew neocon minds -- and delighted voters -- when he
said he was looking
into ending US sanctions on Russia imposed by Obama and may recognize Crimea as Russian
territory.
Which brings us back to Wess Mitchell. Certainly President Trump, seeing the destruction of
Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nuland's anti-Russia
interventionism, would he finally restore a sane diplomat to the position vacated by the
unmourned former Assistant Secretary. Would appoint someone in line with the rhetoric that
landed him the Oval Office. Right?
Wrong!
If anything, Wess Mitchell may well prove to be Victoria Nuland on steroids. He was
co-founder and CEO of the neocon-dominated Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Mitchell's CEPA is
funded largely by the US
government, NATO, neocon grant-making mega-foundations, and the military-industrial complex.
The "think tank" does the bidding of its funders, finding a Russian threat under every rock
that requires a NATO and defense industry response -- or we're doomed!
Last month, CEPA put on its big conference, the " CEPA Forum 2017 ." Speakers included central European heavy
hitter politicos like the president of Latvia and also Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, Commanding General
of U.S. Army Europe, who gave a talk on how "the unity of the NATO Alliance" is "what Russia
fears the most." The grand event was funded, as might be expected, by war contractors Raytheon
and Lockheed-Martin. But also, surprisingly, significant funding came from the Hungarian
government of Viktor Orban, who is seen as somewhat of a maverick in central Europe for
refusing to sign on to the intense Russia-hate seen in the Baltics and in Poland.
The no-doubt extraordinarily expensive conference was funded by no less than three Hungarian
government entities: the Embassy of Hungary in Washington, DC, the Hungarian Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade ,
and the Hungarian Presidency of the Visegrad
Group . Again, given Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's reputation for bucking neocon
positions vis-a-vis Russia it is surprised to see the virulently anti-Russia CEPA conference so
awash in Hungarian taxpayer money. Perhaps there is something to explore in the fact that the
recently-fired Hungarian Ambassador to Washington,Réka Szemerkényi, was
recently named
executive vice president of CEPA. Hmmm. Makes you wonder.
But back to Mitchell. So he founded a neocon think tank funded by a NATO desperate for new
missions and a military-industrial complex desperate for new wars. What about his own views?
Surely he can't be as bad as Nuland. Right? Wrong! Fortunately Assistant Secretary Mitchell is
a prolific writer, so it's easy to track his thinking. In a recent piece for neocon Francis
Fukuyama's American Interest , titled "Predators on the Frontiers," Mitchell
warns that,
"From eastern Ukraine and the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea, large rivals of the United
States are modernizing their military forces, grabbing strategic real estate, and threatening
vulnerable US allies."
Mitchell continues, in a voice right out of the neocon canon, that:
By degrees, the world is entering the path to war. Not since the 1980s have the conditions
been riper for a major international military crisis. Not since the 1930s has the world
witnessed the emergence of multiple large, predatory states determined to revise the global
order to their advantage -- if necessary by force.
We are on a path to war not seen since the 1930s! And why are our "enemies" so
hell-bent on destroying us? Because we are just so isolationist!
Writes Mitchell: "Over the past few years, Russia, China, and, to a degree, Iran have sensed
that the United States is retreating in their respective regions..."
We are "retreating"?
So what can we do? Mitchell again does the bidding of his paymasters in advising that the
only thing we can do to save ourselves is...spend more on militarism:
The United States should therefore enhance its nuclear arsenal by maintaining and modernizing
it. It needs to sustain a credible nuclear extended deterrent at a time when revisionist
states are gradually pushing their spheres of influence and control closer to, if not
against, U.S. allies. Moreover, it should use the limited tactical nuclear weapons at its
disposal and seed them in a few of the most vulnerable and capable frontline states (Poland
and Japan, for instance) under "nuclear sharing" agreements.
"... Such fears were then exaggerated further, thanks to hawkish journalists of the era like Joseph Alsop and prominent Democratic senators like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, as well as Stuart Symington, who just happened to be a friend and former colleague of an executive at the aircraft manufacturing company Convair, which, in turn, just happened to make ICBMs. As a result, he lobbied hard on behalf of a Pentagon plan to build more of that corporation's Atlas ballistic missiles, while Kennedy would famously make the nonexistent missile gap a central theme of his successful 1960 campaign for the presidency. ..."
"... Eisenhower couldn't have been more clear-eyed about all of this. He saw the missile gap for the fiction it was or, as he put it, a "useful piece of political demagoguery" for his opponents. "Munitions makers," he insisted , "are making tremendous efforts towards getting more contracts and in fact seem to be exerting undue influence over the Senators." ..."
"... William D. Hartung, a ..."
"... , is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of ..."
"... . An earlier version of this essay appears in ..."
"... , edited by Helen Caldicott (the New Press). ..."
One thing is certain, however: the president has plenty of nuclear weapons to back up his
aggressive rhetoric -- more than 4,000 of them in the
active U.S. stockpile, when a mere handful of them could obliterate North Korea
at the cost of millions of
lives . Indeed, a few hundred nuclear warheads could do the same for even the largest of
nations and those 4,000, if ever used, could essentially destroy the planet.
In other words, in every sense of the term, the U.S. nuclear arsenal already represents
overkill on an almost unimaginable scale. Independent experts from U.S. war colleges suggest that about
300 warheads would be more than enough to deter any country from launching a nuclear attack on
the United States.
Despite this, Donald Trump is all in (and more) on the Pentagon's plan --
developed under Barack Obama -- to build a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers,
submarines, and missiles, as well as new generations of warheads to go with them. The cost of
this " modernization
" program? The Congressional Budget Office recently pegged it at
$1.7 trillion over the next three decades, adjusted for inflation. As Derek Johnson,
director of the antinuclear organization Global Zero, has
noted , "That's money we don't have for an arsenal we don't need."
Building a Nuclear Complex
Why the desire for so many nukes? There is, in fact, a dirty little secret behind the
massive U.S. arsenal: it has more to do with the power and profits of this country's major
weapons makers than it does with any imaginable strategic considerations.
It may not surprise you to learn that there's nothing new about the influence the nuclear
weapons lobby has over Pentagon spending priorities. The successful machinations of the makers
of strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles, intended to keep taxpayer dollars
flowing their way, date back to the dawn of the nuclear age and are the primary reason
President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the term " military-industrial complex "
and warned of its dangers in his 1961 farewell address.
Without the development of such weapons, that complex simply would not exist in the form it
does today. The Manhattan Project , the
vast scientific-industrial endeavor that produced the first such weaponry during World War II,
was one of the largest government-funded research and manufacturing projects in history.
Today's
nuclear warhead complex is still largely built around facilities and locations that date
back to that time.
The Manhattan Project was the first building block of the permanent arms establishment that
came to rule Washington. In addition, the nuclear arms race against that other superpower of
the era, the Soviet Union, was crucial to the rationale for a permanent war state. In those
years, it was the key to sustaining the building, funding, and institutionalizing of the arms
establishment.
As Eisenhower noted in that farewell address of his, "a permanent arms industry of vast
proportions" had developed for a simple enough reason. In a nuclear age, America had to be
ready ahead of time. As he put it, "We can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national
defense." And that was for a simple enough reason: in an era of potential nuclear war, any
society could be destroyed in a matter of hours. There would be no time, as in the past, to
mobilize or prepare after the fact.
In addition, there were some very specific ways in which the quest for more nuclear weapons
and delivery vehicles drove Eisenhower to give that farewell address. One of his biggest fights
was over whether to build a new nuclear bomber. The Air Force and the arms industry were
desperate to do so. Eisenhower thought it a
waste of money , given all the other nuclear delivery vehicles the U.S. was building at the
time. He even cancelled the bomber, only to find himself forced to revive it under immense
pressure from the arms lobby. In the process, he lost the larger struggle to rein in the
nation's nuclear buildup and corral the burgeoning military-industrial complex.
At the same time, there were rumblings in the intelligence community, the military
establishment, the media, and Congress about a "missile gap" with the Soviet Union. The notion
was that Moscow had somehow jumped ahead of the United States in developing and building
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). There was no definitive intelligence to
substantiate the claim (and it was later proved to be false). However, a wave of worst-case
scenarios leaked by or promoted by intelligence analysts and eagerly backed by industry
propaganda made that missile gap part of the everyday news of the time.
Such fears were then exaggerated further, thanks to hawkish
journalists of the era like Joseph Alsop and prominent Democratic senators like John F. Kennedy
and Lyndon Johnson, as well as Stuart Symington, who just happened to be a friend and former
colleague of an executive at the aircraft manufacturing company Convair, which, in turn, just
happened to make ICBMs. As a result, he lobbied
hard on behalf of a Pentagon plan to build more of that corporation's Atlas ballistic missiles,
while Kennedy would famously make the nonexistent missile gap a central theme of his successful
1960 campaign for the presidency.
Eisenhower couldn't have been more clear-eyed about all of this. He saw
the missile gap for the fiction it was or, as he put it, a "useful piece of political
demagoguery" for his opponents. "Munitions makers," he insisted
, "are making tremendous efforts towards getting more contracts and in fact seem to be exerting
undue influence over the Senators."
Once Kennedy took office, it became all too apparent that there was no missile
gap , but by then it hardly mattered. The damage had been done. Billions of dollars more
were flowing into the nuclear-industrial complex to build up an American arsenal of ICBMs
already unmatched on the planet.
The techniques that the arms lobby and its allies in government used more than half a
century ago to promote sky-high nuclear weapons spending continue to be wielded to this day.
The twenty-first-century arms complex employs tools of influence that Kennedy and his
compatriots would have found familiar indeed -- including millions of dollars in campaign
contributions that flow to members of Congress and the continual employment of 700
to 1,000 lobbyists to influence them. At certain moments, in other words, there have been
nearly two arms lobbyists for every member of Congress. Much of this sort of activity remains
focused on ensuring that nuclear weapons of all types are amply financed and that the funding
for the new generations of the bombers, submarines, and missiles that will deliver them stays
on track.
across the country . There are nuclear weapons labs in California and New Mexico; a nuclear
weapons testing and research site in Nevada; a nuclear warhead assembly and disassembly plant
in Texas; a factory in Kansas City, Missouri, that builds nonnuclear parts for such weapons;
and a plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that enriches uranium for those same weapons. There are
factories or bases for ICBMs, bombers, and ballistic missile submarines in Connecticut,
Georgia, Washington State, California, Ohio, Massachusetts, Louisiana, North Dakota, and
Wyoming. Such a nuclear geography ensures that a striking number of congressional
representatives will automatically favor more spending on nuclear weapons.
In reality, the jobs argument is deeply flawed. As the experts know, virtually any other
activity into which such funding flowed would create significantly more jobs than Pentagon
spending. A study
by economists at the University of Massachusetts, for example, found infrastructure investment
would create one and one-half times as many jobs as Pentagon funding and education spending
twice as many.
In most cases it hasn't seemed to matter that the jobs claims for weapons spending are
grotesquely exaggerated and better alternatives litter the landscape. The argument remains
remarkably potent in states and communities that are particularly dependent on the Pentagon.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, members of Congress from such areas are disproportionately represented
on the committees that decide how much will be spent on nuclear and conventional weaponry.
A Field Guide to Influencing Nuclear Thinking in Washington
Another way the nuclear weapons industry (like the rest of the military-industrial complex)
tries to control and focus public debate is by funding hawkish, right-wing think tanks. The
advantage to weapons makers is that those institutions and their associated "experts" can serve
as front groups for the complex, while posing as objective policy analysts. Think of it as an
intellectual version of money laundering.
One of the most effective industry-funded think tanks in
terms of promoting costly, ill-advised policies has undoubtedly been Frank Gaffney's Center for
Security Policy. In 1983, when President Ronald Reagan
first announced his Strategic Defense Initiative (which soon gained the nickname "Star
Wars"), the high-tech space weapons system that was either meant to defend the country against
a future Soviet first strike or -- depending on how you looked at it -- free the country to use
its nuclear weapons without fear of being attacked, Gaffney was its biggest booster. More
recently, he has become a prominent
purveyor of Islamophobia, but the impact of his promotional work for Star Wars continues to
be felt in contracts for future weaponry to this day.
He had served in the Reagan-era Pentagon, but left because even that administration wasn't
anti-Soviet enough for his tastes, once the president and his advisers began to discuss things
like reducing nuclear weapons in Europe. It didn't take him long to set up his center with
funding from Boeing, Lockheed, and other defense contractors.
Another key industry-backed think tank in the nuclear policy field is the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP). It released a
report on
nuclear weapons policy just as George W. Bush was entering the White House that would be
adopted almost wholesale by his administration for its first key nuclear posture review. It
advocated such things as increasing the number of countries targeted by the country's nuclear
arsenal and building a new, more "usable," bunker-busting nuke. At that time, NIPP had an
executive from Boeing on its board and its director was Keith Payne. He would become infamous
in the annals of nuclear policy for co-authoring a 1980
article at Foreign Policy entitled "Victory Is Possible," suggesting that the
United States could actually win a nuclear war, while "only" losing 30 million to 40 million
people. This is the kind of expert the nuclear weapons complex chose to fund to promulgate its
views.
Then there is the Lexington
Institute , the think tank that never met a weapons system it didn't like. Their key front
man, Loren Thompson, is frequently quoted in news stories on defense issues. It is rarely
pointed out that he is funded by
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other nuclear weapons contractors.
And these are just a small sampling of Washington's research and advocacy groups that take
money from weapons contractors, ranging from organizations on the right like the Heritage
Foundation to Democratic-leaning outfits like the Center for a New American Security , co-founded by former Obama
administration Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy (who was believed
to have the inside track on being appointed secretary of defense had Hillary Clinton won the
2016 election).
And you may not be surprised to learn that Donald Trump is no piker when it comes to
colluding with the weapons industry. His strong preference for populating his administration
with former arms industry executives is so blatant that Senator John McCain recently
pledged to oppose any new nominees with industry ties. Examples of Trump's industry-heavy
administration include Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a former board member at General
Dynamics; White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, who worked for a number of defense firms and
was an adviser to DynCorp, a private security firm that has done everything from (poorly)
training the Iraqi police to contracting with the Department of Homeland Security; former
Boeing executive and now Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan; former Lockheed Martin
executive John Rood, nominated as undersecretary of defense for policy; former Raytheon Vice
President Mark Esper, newly confirmed as secretary of the Army; Heather Wilson, a former
consultant to Lockheed Martin, who is secretary of the Air Force; Ellen Lord, a former CEO for
the aerospace company Textron, who is undersecretary of defense for acquisition; and National
Security Council Chief of Staff Keith Kellogg, a former employee of the major defense and
intelligence contractor CACI, where he dealt with "ground combat systems" among other things.
And keep in mind that these high-profile industry figures are just the tip of the iceberg when
it comes to the corporate revolving door
that has for decades been installed in the Pentagon (as documented by Lee Fang of the
Intercept in a story from early in Trump's
tenure).
When it comes to the art of the deal, at least where arms sales are concerned, American
presidents, their administrations, and the Pentagon have long been Trumpian in nature. Their
role has been to beat the drums (of war) for the major American weapons makers and it's been a
highly profitable and successful activity. In 2015, for instance, the U.S. once again took the
top
spot in global weapons sales, $40 billion dollars of them, or a staggering 50.2% of the
world market. (Russia came in a distant third with $11.2 billion in sales.) The U.S. also
topped sales of
weaponry to developing nations. In these years, Washington has, in fact, peddled the products
of those arms makers to
at least 100 countries , a staggering figure if you stop a moment to think about the
violence on this planet. Internationally, in other words, the U.S. has always been an
open-carry nation.
Donald Trump has, however, changed this process in one obvious way. He's shoved the
president's role as arms-purveyor-in-chief in everybody's face. He did so on his initial trip
abroad when, in Riyadh, he
bragged ceaselessly about ringing up $110 billion dollars in arms sales to the Saudis. Some
of those had, in fact, already been brokered by the Obama administration and some weren't
actually "sales" at all, just "
letters of intent ." Still, he took the most fulsome of credit and, when it comes to his
"achievements," exaggeration is, of course, the name of his game.
And he's just done it again on his blustery jaunt through Japan and South Korea. There,
using the
North Korean threat, he plugged
American weaponry mercilessly (so to speak), while claiming potential deals and future American
jobs galore. In the presence of Shinzo Abe, for instance, he
swore that the Japanese Prime Minister would "shoot [North Korean missiles] out of the sky
when he completes the purchase of a lot of military equipment from the United States." Both the
Japanese and the South Korean leaders, seeing a way into his well-armored heart, humored him
relentlessly on the subject and on his claims of bringing home jobs to the U.S. (In fact, one
of the weapons systems he was plugging, the F-35 ,
would actually be assembled in Japan!)
Strangely enough, however, the president didn't bring up an issue he raises regularly when
it comes to weapons sales in the United States (at least, sales to white people, not Muslims,
with an urge to kill):
mental health . Isn't it curious that, as he peddles some of the more destructive weaponry
imaginable across Asia and the Middle East, he never brings that up? Fortunately, TomDispatch regular and
expert on American arms sales William Hartung raises the issue today in an adaptation of a
piece he wrote for Sleepwalking to
Armageddon: The Threat of Nuclear Annihilation , a book just published by the New
Press. You might say that he considers the most mentally unnerving aspect of American arms
sales: the way, since the 1950s, the nuclear lobby has sold planet-destroying weaponry of every
sort to presidents, the Pentagon, and Congress. And if that doesn't represent a disturbing
mental health record of the first order, what does?
"... Secondly, those who are told at every possible opportunity how 'exceptional' they are, are also likely to accept the war crimes of their leaders, as these are of course exceptional leaders.The U.S. can unilaterally withdraw from all treaties against war crimes and attack anybody at will - because 'exceptional' countries must be given the freedom to do what their decrepitude demands. ..."
"... The U.S. has destroyed life, liberty and the pursuit of survival of millions of innocent people. Only the most repugnant folks are okay with that and with those who ordered the war crimes. But the problem is that a large part of the population suffers from instilled amnesia and does not know what war crimes these psychopathic puppets need to be tried for. Because killing one million innocent people for resources sounds about right for the average Joe and Jane. Got to fill that SUV up. The destruction of sovereign countries based on lies poses no problem for the average Joe and Jane. Incubator lies, WMD lies, Sarin gas lies are all reason enough to bomb a place that contains more ancient artifacts than any other country into smithereens. Plus, it's job security to commit war crimes. ..."
Rolling that wheelchair bound POS ex-Prez. out on to the field at the last super duper bowl to
a cheering audience can now be considered a weekly 2 minutes of stupidity ritual.
nhs @2, yes, this rehabilitation of war criminals is startling. I first noticed it a few years
ago, and wrote this comment during the primaries when I still had hope that Sanders could present
a step in the right direction.
A few years back, Stephen Colbert did a dance routine skit in which he danced into Henry Kissinger's
office and then left. I commented that I didn't think it appropriate to include that war criminal
in a "progressive" comedy skit that didn't call him out as the monster he is, and I got a lot
of grief from Colbert fans (which I was also).
Then, in Jon Stewart's last season on The Daily Show, he had Henry Kissinger on as a guest
and did a disgustingly fawning interview. I was sickened.
Why? I asked. Why was Viacom introducing to this younger audience a war criminal and treating
him like some great statesman?
Then, the Obama Administration (Ash Carter specifically) gave Kissinger the Distinguished Public
Service Award, the highest award our country can grant to a civilian.
What???
But then, in one of the debates against Bernie Sanders, HRC gave a shout out to Kissinger as
a dear friend whom she has gone to for advice on foreign policy for decades, and to whom she would
seek out his "wise counsel" if elected President.
And then the previous couple of years of gradually refurbishing Kissinger made sense.
Why people with liberal/progressive values - or simple humane values - didn't immediately see
that as disqualifying for a Democratic candidate is beyond me.
A very good example as to why Krishnamurti called this society 'profoundly sick'.
Although we now know that it is much more than that. Instead of being profoundly sick, this
society is terminally ill.
This happening is reminiscent of the practices the Fascists devised in Germany. The media depicted
the most rabid war criminals as loyal followers of the Führer. In other words, they were above
the law and shielded from any public scrutiny (by the same kind of 'media') until they ended up
at the Nuremberg Tribunal, in which the big boys got scot free and the little guys were hung.
Which in turn led to the German 'proverb' "Die Kleinen hängt man und die Grossen läßt man laufen."
(The little ones are hanged and the big ones walk away.)
So, by itself there is nothing new about that. What is most disturbing though, is the impunity
the so called 'news' 'media' displays when lying to the public. One day the chicken will come
home to roost.
The archaic leadership delusion needs to go. Abolish the office of the most dangerous man on
earth. The government is public enemy number one and there are two ways of denial about it:
The first is related to ' inexterminateable ' obedience . There are really still
people out there that believe all the shit the 'media' churns out on behalf of the owners of this
planet (at least that's how see themselves).
Secondly, those who are told at every possible opportunity how 'exceptional' they are,
are also likely to accept the war crimes of their leaders, as these are of course exceptional
leaders.The U.S. can unilaterally withdraw from all treaties against war crimes and attack anybody
at will - because 'exceptional' countries must be given the freedom to do what their decrepitude
demands.
The U.S. has destroyed life, liberty and the pursuit of survival of millions of innocent
people. Only the most repugnant folks are okay with that and with those who ordered the war crimes.
But the problem is that a large part of the population suffers from instilled amnesia and does
not know what war crimes these psychopathic puppets need to be tried for. Because killing one
million innocent people for resources sounds about right for the average Joe and Jane. Got to
fill that SUV up. The destruction of sovereign countries based on lies poses no problem for the
average Joe and Jane. Incubator lies, WMD lies, Sarin gas lies are all reason enough to bomb a
place that contains more ancient artifacts than any other country into smithereens. Plus, it's
job security to commit war crimes.
After all we only do it to protect the American people and their allies from all these dictators
that we have prepped up prior. With the exception of Syria, that is on the regime change wish
list of public enemy number one since 70 years.
Thanks for the link, even though I had some stomach fluid coming up at the sight of these pathetic
excuses for what goes for a Human Being.
Sigh. It really looks like it will get a lot worse before it can get slightly better.
"... Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own borders. ..."
"... In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that continues to this day." ..."
"... To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere prevail ..."
"... Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.) ..."
"... That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine to that sorry list. ..."
"... Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's? After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's sake. ..."
"... This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately ruinous. ..."
"... Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping voters in the dark. ..."
"... Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable. ..."
"... Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what direction they want to face in the future. ..."
"... So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters. ..."
"... Do not buy any major newspaper. Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year: fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news think what I said over and you will see ..."
"... All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of deregulations etc. ..."
"... Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well. ..."
"... If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors." So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized them) is wrong. Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more suitable answer than scapegoating. Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact. ..."
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates "fake
news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New York
Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I cherish the First Amendment. Mark me down as favoring journalism that is loud, lively, and
confrontational. When members of the media snooze -- falling for fictitious claims about
Saddam's WMD program or Gaddafi's genocidal intentions, for example -- we all lose.
So the recent decision by Times editors to
publish an op-ed regarding Paul Manafort's involvement in Ukraine is disturbing. That the
Times is keen to bring down Donald Trump is no doubt the case. Yet if efforts to do so
entail grotesque distortions of U.S. policy before Trump, then we are courting real
trouble. Put simply, ousting Trump should not come at the cost of whitewashing the follies that
contributed to Trump's rise in the first place.
The offending Times op-ed, the handiwork of Evelyn N. Farkas, appears under the title
"With Manafort, It Really Is About Russia, Not Ukraine." During the Obama administration,
Farkas served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia, and Mess
Kit Repair. Okay, I added that last bit, but it does seem like quite an expansive charter for a
mere deputy assistant secretary.
The story Farkas tells goes like this.
First, from the moment it achieved independence in 1991, Ukraine was a divided nation, "torn
between Western Europe and Russia." Ukrainians in the country's western precincts wanted to
join the European Union and NATO. Those further to east "oriented themselves toward Russia,
which exerted maximum influence to keep Ukraine closely aligned." In one camp were enlightened
Ukrainians. In the other camp, the unenlightened.
Second, Manafort's involvement in this intra-Ukrainian dispute was -- shockingly -- never
about "advanc[ing] the interests of democracy, Western Europe or the United States." Manafort's
motives were strictly venal. In what Farkas describes as a "standoff between democracy and
autocracy," he threw in with the autocrats, thereby raking in millions.
Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become
president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to
Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic
election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in
Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own
borders.
In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened
ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the
expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist
movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that
continues to this day."
To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort
was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent
bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere
prevail .
Such was hardly the case, however. One need not be a Putin apologist to note that the United
States was itself engaged in a program of instigation, one that ultimately induced a hostile --
but arguably defensive -- Russian response.
In the wake of the Cold War, the EU and NATO did not experience a "burst" of expansion, a
formulation suggesting joyous spontaneity. Rather, with Washington's enthusiastic support, the
West embarked upon a deliberate eastward march at the Kremlin's expense, an undertaking made
possible by (and intended to exploit) Russia's weakened state. In football, it's called piling
on.
That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic Republics,
and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded.
That at some point a resentful Russia would push back was all but certain. Indeed, more than
a few Western observers had warned against such a response.
The proposed incorporation of Ukraine into NATO brought matters to a head. For Putin, this
was an unacceptable prospect. He acted as would any U.S. president contemplating the absorption
of a near neighbor into hostile bloc of nations. Indeed, he acted much as had Dwight D.
Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy when they assessed the implications of Cuba joining the Soviet
bloc.
That doesn't justify or excuse Putin's meddling in Ukraine. Yet it suggests an explanation
for Russian behavior other than the bitterness of an ex-KGB colonel still with his shorts in a
knot over losing the Cold War. Russia has an obvious and compelling interest in who controls
Ukraine, even if few in Washington or in the editorial offices of the New York Times
will acknowledge that reality.
Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally
guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State
Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should
govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no
interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the
U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.)
That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause.
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability
to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply
on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine
to that sorry list.
Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's?
After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the
American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's
sake.
Persuade yourself that the United States is all about democracy promotion, as Farkas appears
to believe, and the answer to that question is clearly yes. Alas, the record of American
statecraft stretching over decades provides an abundance of contrary evidence. In practice, the
United States supports democracy only when it finds it convenient to do so. Should
circumstances require, it unhesitatingly befriends despots, especially rich ones that pay cash
while purchasing American weaponry.
Yanukovych was Putin's man, "and therefore, indirectly, so was Mr. Manafort," Farkas
concludes. All that now remains is to determine "the extent to which Mr. Manafort was Putin's
man in Washington." For Farkas, the self-evident answer to that question cannot come too
soon.
As to whether Russia -- or any other great power -- might have legitimate security interests
that the United States would do well to respect, that's not a matter worth bothering about.
Thus does the imperative of ousting Trump eclipse the need to confront the pretensions and the
hubris that helped make Trump possible.
Andrew Bacevich is writer-at-large at The American Conservative
This is why the term "fake news" is so harmful and should not be used by media outlets. The
use of "bad journalism" would be much more useful as it forces the claimants to justify their
reasons for doing so.
"Fake news" is just a dog whistle.
Has it not occurred to the foreign policy establishment in Washington that it is more in
America's national interests for Ukraine to remain in Moscow's orbit, so as to strengthen
U.S.-Russian relations, not exacerbate tensions, rather than to pull them into the EU, or,
God forbid, NATO? Isn't this what any of the seasoned experts at Foggy Bottom would tell you?
Why aren't they doing so?
1) Yanukovich won in 2004 as well and the election results were hijacked by 'Maidan'
2) Yanukovich wasn't Putin man back in 2010. As a matter of fact, he and his party actively
promoted EU integration deal, until they read its actual conditions. After that they
backtracked and rushed to Putin for a support.
So it was classical case of sitting on two chairs simultaneously.
Completely agree with John Fargo. "Fake News" should be reserved for deliberate falsehoods
published knowingly. This NYT op-ed amounts to "an interpretation of history Bacevich doesn't
agree with." I may not agree with it either – but it's not like claiming that the Vegas
shooter was anti-Trump, or creating a Facebook account for a non-existent person or
organization.
Mr Fargo: Disagree. "Bad journalism" implies the author is lazy yet innocent in their way.
"Fake news" is more about narrative control and manipulation of the reader through
reinvention or exaggeration, et cetera. Calling articles and outlets fake news is more
accurate and levies much more weight against the lies and deceit than simply accusing someone
or thing of bad journalism.
This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a
democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military
obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately
ruinous.
If it were all about democracy promotion, they wouldn't also be so anxious to negate an
election here at home. Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for
its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the
importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping
voters in the dark.
Re: "More 'Fake News,' Alas, From the New York Times"
Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog
Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable.
Re: "That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic
Republics, and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded."
Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's
Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions
of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second
thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out
of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what
direction they want to face in the future.
How is it someone's "opinion" constitutes "fake News"? Trump did not win by policy issues, he
rode the right-wing outrage at all things clinton/libtard better than anyone else. His policy
positions were mostly promise everything to everyone, but his campaign was about Lock her up/
build the wall! After bashing Goldman Sachs during the election, once he won he promptly
filled his cabinet with them and other mega donor types.
@John Fargo – I'm in almost complete sympathy with Mr. Bacevich's essay, but you make
an excellent point. "Bad journalism" is the better term. In fact, the only criticism I can
make of your statement is that "dog whistle" is the wrong term. Everyone associates the term
"fake news" with Donald Trump. (If it were possible, he no doubt would have trademarked it.)
Using the term alienates the very people who need to hear criticisms like those in Mr.
Bacevich's essay. They hear it, too; and upon hearing it, they stop listening.
Look, elite and non-elite self-delusion about the purity of U.S. motives abroad dates back to
the Roosevelt administration at least -- and I mean the Teddy Roosevelt administration. I
don't see how any of this amounts to a defense of charges of money-laundering against
Manafort.
I disagree with John Fargo. The news that NYT, Washington Post, and other media outlets (not
only liberal ) "produce" is the "Fake News". "Bad journalism" should be reserved and used in
the sense Nolan explains. Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American
politics in general is the problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues".
American "right" is the camp of the white flag.
Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American politics in general is the
problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues". American "right" is the
camp of the white flag.
I've mentioned the various "flavors" of Fake News before. There is (1) the obvious –
what is claimed as true is actually false. But also (2), what is claimed as important,
actually isn't. And (3) what is important, is weakly or not reported at all.
An example of Type 2 is the WaPost reporting on its front page before the 2016 that Jared
Kushner may have been greased into the Harvard MBA program. As if Ivy League greasing by
monied Elites is unheard of. How was that front page news? And how about the acceptances of
Chelsea Clinton (Stanford) and Malia Obama (Harvard)?
The cases of Type 3 Fake News are much more egregious. For example, the reasoned arguments
and analysis by retired American intelligence officers and academics that the Syrian forces
"chemical weapon attack" in April was almost certainly a false flag with staged recovery
activity.
The NY Times and WaPost have consistently refused to acknowledge that those arguments and
analysis even exist.
The linking of Russia to the DNC email leaks as factual by the Times, Post and NPR without
a scintilla of published hard evidence is another example.
There are many more examples of Type 3 Fake News that could be demonstrated. Much of what
claims to be journalism by the MSM is now Fake News trash.
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates
"fake news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New
York Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I agree in principal, although I note that President Trump and his team are as guilty of
fake news as anyone, and the president himself appears to be positively delusional. I might
at times disagree with Bacevich as to which news is fake.
I would also agree that there has been a great deal of "fake news" out of Ukraine, and
what is really going on their is a former SSR with a bitterly divided population that each
has about equal numbers, proponderance in some territories compared to others, and equally
opportunistic leadership showing no great commitment to anything recognizable as
"democracy."
Say, can we refrain from using the word 'journalism' when we refer to the American media?
We should.
The internet and sources overseas, such as the Independent News paper/site out of
Britain,
have news that is not purposely spun as is by the neo-con American news papers and magazines.
Not as much, anyway.
Several points here, for example of what bad news (pun intended) the joke of American media
is:
1- quit calling the main stream media liberal or left. They are liberal in a 'social issues
sense,' that is, to be politically correct.
2- So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of
magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters.
3-They have agendas.
Do we not remember how they, at the new york times, peddled the war against Iraq and how,
when you look at the editorial page you feel that these people and the guests opinion writers
are soulless people that have no concern for America's 'flyover' country?
4- Yeah, isn't that ironic that these people look down on America's middle class, blue collar
workers and yes, it's troops, by that constant bashing of nations here and there and pushing
for aggressive stands or even military attacks?
Let the people at the major newspapers like this n.y.times rag tell us when they served in
the U.S. military or their when their offspring did or when they're gonna join and volunteer
for combat duty.
Never mind, I've got the answer-none of 'em.
Do not buy any major newspaper.
Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year:
fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news
think what I said over and you will see
Not everybody has the time to analyze the deluge of all the "Fake News" and categorize it
into classes and/or sub-classes you or somebody else proposes. Where all that leads? Soon we
will have new sociopolitical discipline and experts on "fake-newsology" that will introduce
another layer of pseudo-information that will have to be translated to the uninitiated and
unwashed.
All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the
economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious
in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the
corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end
to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of
deregulations etc.
Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards
and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack
of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to
make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and
it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well.
nikbez
If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs
to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors."
So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT
exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized
them) is wrong.
Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of
neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a
symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more
suitable answer than scapegoating.
Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact.
Cyril Wecht - Wikipedia
Cyril Harrison Wecht (born March 20, 1931) is an American
forensic pathologist.
He has been a consultant in numerous high-profile cases, but is perhaps best known for his criticism
of the Warren Commission's
findings concerning the
assassination
of John F. Kennedy. See books: Into EVIDENCE: Truth, Lies and Unresolved Mysteries in the Murder
of JFK; November 22, 1963: A Reference Guide to the JFK Assassination
Notable quotes:
"... "about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory. ..."
"... (Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/ ..."
deHaven Smith is not that impressive on several counts.
one example: book opens:
"Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy
assassination, they also have doubts about conspiracy theories and those who believe them.
This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission,
but to sow uncertainty about the commission's critics. Today, people are not only uncertain,
they have given up ever learning the truth. "
At least one high-profile person and an entire community that supports him does not have doubts,
has not given up. Cyril Wecht blasted holes in Arlen Specter's "one bullet" theory in 1965. He's
still at it. In 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination,
"about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the
university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by
Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they
mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory.
Across the state, the Single Bullet exhibit opened on Oct. 21. It's the first exhibition
in Philadelphia University's Arlen Specter Center for Public Policy. Willens, the former Kennedy
aide, delivered a speech. The center's coordinator, Karen Albert, said he was looking forward
to defending his conclusion on the 50th anniversary. "
http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5017529-74/wecht-commission-specter
Smith did not even mention Wecht or Specter and the single-bullet theory in his book. The omission
is important insofar as its inclusion would have demonstrated that for many years the populace
has been aware of the dishonesty of the US government and some have been raising their voices
against and continue to do so.
That knowledge should give encouragement to activists such as those who demand accountability
for Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the deliberate killing of 34 US sailors and other personnel.
(Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro,
former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel.
http://israellobby.org/numec/
I am not sure the tail is wagging the dog in Middle East. The USA has Carter doctrine in
place which means that they need to dominate all petro states. That might explain high level
of animosity toward Iran, which is not a puppet regime as Carter doctrine requires. In this
sense Israel interests are probably highly congruent with the USA interests. Otherwise Netanyahu
would not be a prime minister. He proved to be greedy and reckless. The US intelligence
agencies probably have enough material to remove him without much noise.
Notable quotes:
"... Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations are leading President Trump , like a puppy on a leash, into a major war with Iran. The hysterical '52 Presidents' and 'Bibi' Netanyahu are busy manufacturing Holocaust-level predictions that a non-nuclear Iran is preparing to 'vaporize' Israel, , The buffoonish US President Trump has swallowed this fantasy wholesale and is pushing our nation toward war for the sake of Israel and its US-based supporters and agents. We will cite ten recent examples of Israeli-authored policies, implemented by Trump in his march to war (there are scores of others). ..."
"... Trump's total reliance on his pro-Israel advisers, embedded in his regime, at the expense of US military intelligence, has led to the construction of a parallel government, pitting the President and his Zionist-advisers against his generals . This certainly exposes the total hypocrisy of Trump's presidential campaign promise to ' Make America Great Again' . His practice and policy of promoting war with Iran for the sake of Israel are placing US national interest and the advice of the US generals last and will never restore American prestige. ..."
Can Generals James Mattis (US Secretary of Defense) and John Hyten (Head of US Strategic
Command) Prevent a Disaster?
Introduction
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish
American Organizations are leading President Trump , like a puppy on a leash, into a major war
with Iran. The hysterical '52 Presidents' and 'Bibi' Netanyahu are busy manufacturing
Holocaust-level predictions that a non-nuclear Iran is preparing to 'vaporize' Israel, , The
buffoonish US President Trump has swallowed this fantasy wholesale and is pushing our nation
toward war for the sake of Israel and its US-based supporters and agents. We will cite ten
recent examples of Israeli-authored policies, implemented by Trump in his march to war (there
are scores of others).
After many years, Israel and 'the 52 President' finally made the US withdraw from the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) because of its
detailed documentation of Israeli crimes against Palestinian people. Trump complied with their
demands.
Tel Aviv demanded a Zionist fanatic and backer of the illegal Jewish settler occupation
of Palestinian lands, the bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman , be appointed US Ambassador to
Israel. Trump complied, despite the ambassador's overt conflict of interest.
Israel launched waves of savage bombings against Syrian government troops and facilities
engaged in a war against ISIS-mercenary terrorists. Israel, which had backed the terrorists in
its ambition to break-up of the secular Syrian state, demanded US support. Trump complied, and
sent more US arms to the anti-government terrorists.
Israel denounced the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal Framework and Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action , signed by 6 major states and UN Security Council Members, (US, France, UK,
Germany, China and Russia). A furious Netanyahu demanded that President Trump follow Tel Aviv
and abrogate the multiparty agreement signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama . Trump complied
and the US is at risk of openly violating its international agreement.
Trump parrots Netanyahu's falsehoods to the letter: He raves that Iran, while technically in
compliance, has violated ' the spirit of the agreement' without citing a single instance
of actual violation. The 5 other signers of the ' Framework', the US military and the
UN's International Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly certified Iran's strict compliance with
the accord. Trump rejects the evidence of countless experts among US allies and 'his own
generals' while embracing the hysterical lies from Israel and the ' 52' . Who would have
thought the 'hard-nosed' businessman Trump would be so ' spiritual' when it came to
honoring and breaking treaties and agreements!
Israel and the ' 52' have demanded that Washington imprison and fine US citizens
who have exercised their constitutional First Amendment Right of free speech by supporting the
international boycott, divest and sanctions (BDS) campaign, which is designed to end the
illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and crimes against Palestinians. Trump complied.
Americans may soon face over a decade in prison and complete economic ruin for supporting a
peaceful economic boycott of Israeli settler products. This will represent an unprecedented
violation of the US Constitution. At present, US public employees, like teachers in certain US
states, are facing job loss for refusing to sign a 'loyalty oath' not to boycott products from
Israel's illegal settlements. Desperate American victims of the floods and natural disasters in
Texas are being denied access to public US taxpayer relief funds unless they sign similar
loyalty oaths in support of Israel.
Israel demanded that the US appoint Zionist fanatic real estate attorney, Jason Greenblatt and real estate speculator, Jared Kushner as Middle East peace negotiators.
Trump
appointed South Carolina businesswoman Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the United Nations.
Israel pushed for Ms. Haley, the first US governor to criminalize support for the peaceful BDS
movement.
Trump went against the advice of ' his Generals' in his own cabinet regarding
Iran's compliance with the nuclear agreement, and chose to comply with Netanyahu's demands.
Trump supports the long-standing Israeli project to maneuver a Kurdish takeover of
Northern Iraq, grabbing the oil-rich Kirkuk province and permanently divide the once secular,
nationalist Iraqi nation. Trump has sent arms and military advisers to the Kurds in war-torn
Syria as they attempt to grab territory for a separate 'Kurdistan'. This is part of an Israeli
plan to subdivide the Middle East into impotent tribal 'statelets'.
Trump rejected the Turkish government's demand to extradite CIA-Israeli-backed Fethullah
Gulen , self-exiled in the US since 1999, for his leadership role in the failed 2016 military
coup d'etat.
Like all his predecessors, Trump is completely submissive to Israeli-directed ' lobbies' (like AIPAC), which operate on behalf of a foreign power, in violation of the
1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. Trump chose his Orthodox Zionist son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, a callow real estate investor and prominent supporter for war against Iran, as his
chief foreign policy adviser.
President Trump's irresponsible pandering to Israel and its American-Jewish agents has
caused deep unease among the Generals in his cabinet, as well as among active duty and retired
US military officers, who are skeptical about Tel Aviv's push for open-ended US wars in the
Middle East.
Ten Reasons Why Military Officers support America's Nuclear Accord with Iran
The Netanyahu-Israel First power configuration in Washington succeeded in convincing Trump
to tear-up the nuclear accord with Iran. This went against the advice and wishes of the top US
generals in the White House and active duty officers in the field who support the agreement and
recognize Iran's cooperation.
The Generals have ten solid reasons for rejecting the Netanyahu-Trump push to shred the
accord:
The agreement is working. By all reliable, independent and official observers, including
the International Atomic Energy Agency, the US intelligence community and the US Secretary of
State – Iran is complying with its side of the agreement.
If Trump violates the agreement, co-signed by the 6 members of the UN Security Council,
in order to truckle to the whims of Israel and its gang of ' 52', the US government will
lose all credibility among its allies. The US military will be equally tainted in its current
and future dealings with NATO and other military 'partners'.
Violation of the agreement will force the Iranians to restart their nuclear, as well as
advanced defensive, weapons programs, increasing the risk of an Israeli-Trump instigated
military confrontation. Any US war with Iran will be prolonged, costing the lives of tens of
thousands of US troops, its land bases in the Gulf States, and warships in the Persian Gulf.
Full-scale war with Iran, a large and well-armed country, would be a disaster for the entire
region.
US generals know from their earlier experiences under the George W. Bush
Administration that Zionist officials in Washington, in close collaboration with Israeli
handlers, worked tirelessly to engineer the US invasion of Iraq and the prolonged war in
Afghanistan. This led to the death and injury of hundreds of thousands of US military personnel
as well as millions of civilian casualties in the invaded countries. The ensuing chaos created
the huge refugee crises now threatening the stability of Europe. The Generals view the
Israel-Firsters as irresponsible armchair warmongers and media propagandists, who have no 'skin
in the game' through any service in the US Armed Forces. They are correctly seen as agents for
a foreign entity.
US generals learned the lesson of the wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Somalia –
where disastrous interventions led to defeats and loss of potential important regional
allies.
US generals, who are working with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to negotiate an
agreement with North Korea, know that Trump's breaking a negotiated agreement with Iran, only
reinforces North Korea's distrust of the US and will harden its opposition to a diplomatic
settlement on the Korean Peninsula. It is clear that a full-scale war with nuclear-armed North
Korea could wipe out tens of thousands of US troops and allies throughout the region and kill
or displace hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians.
US generals are deeply disturbed by the notion that their Commander in Chief, the elected
President of the United States, is taking his orders from Israel and its US proxies. They
dislike committing American blood and treasure for a foreign power whose policies have only
degraded US influence in the Middle East. The generals want to act for and in defense of US
national interests – and not Tel Aviv's.
US military officials resent the fact that Israel receives the most advanced US military
weapons and technology, which have been subsidized by the US taxpayers. In some cases, Israelis
receive advanced US weapons before US troops even have them. They also are aware that Israeli
intelligence agents (and American citizens) have spied on the US and received confidential
military information in order to preempt US policy. Israel operates within the United States
with total impunity!
US generals are concerned about negotiating accords with China over strategic military
issues of global importance. The constant catering and groveling to Israel, an insignificant
global economic entity, has reduced US prestige and status, as well as China's trust in the
validity of any military agreements with the Americans.
Trump's total reliance on his pro-Israel advisers, embedded in his regime, at the
expense of US military intelligence, has led to the construction of a parallel government,
pitting the President and his Zionist-advisers against his generals . This certainly
exposes the total hypocrisy of Trump's presidential campaign promise to ' Make America Great
Again' . His practice and policy of promoting war with Iran for the sake of Israel are
placing US national interest and the advice of the US generals last and will never restore
American prestige.
Trump's decision not to certify Iran's compliance with the accord and his handing the
ultimate decision on an international agreement signed by the six members of the UN Security
Council over to the US Congress is ominous: He has effectively given potential war making
powers to a corrupt legislature, often derided as 'Israeli occupied territory', which has
always sided with Israeli and US Zionist war mongers. Trump is snubbing ' his' State
Department, the Pentagon and the various US Intelligence agencies while giving into the demands
of such Zionist zealots as New York Senator Charles Schumer , Netanyahu's alter ego in the US
Senate and a huge booster for war with Iran.
Conclusion
Trump's refusal to certify Iran's compliance with nuclear accord reflects the overwhelming
power of Israel within the US Presidency. Trump's rebuke of his generals and Secretary of State
Tillerson, the UN Security Council and the 5 major cosigners of the 2015 accord with Iran,
exposes the advanced degradation of the US Presidency and the US role in global politics.
All previous US Presidents have been influenced by the billionaire and millionaire die-hard
Israel-Firsters, who funded their electoral campaigns. But occasionally, some ' Commanders
in Chief' have decided to pursue policies favoring US national interest over Israel's
bellicose ambitions. Avoiding a catastrophic war in the Middle East is such a case: Obama chose
to negotiate and sign a nuclear accord with Iran. Tel Aviv's useful fool, Donald Trump, intends
to break the agreement and drag this nation further into the hell of regional war.
In this regard, international opinion has sided with America's generals. Only Israel and its
US acolytes on Wall Street and Hollywood applaud the blustering, bellicose Trump!
*
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New
York.He is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in
professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of
Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles
in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian
Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, TempsModerne, Le Monde
Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. He has a long history of
commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers
Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on
Repression in Latin America
Iraq war was the war for oil... Bush was just a puppet.
Notable quotes:
"... Erik Edstrom is a graduate of the West Point class of 2007. He was an infantry officer, Army Ranger, and Bronze Star Medal recipient who deployed to direct combat in Afghanistan. ..."
In George W. Bush's home state of Texas, if you are an ordinary citizen found guilty of capital
murder, the mandatory sentence is either life in prison or the death penalty. If, however, you are
a former president of the United States responsible for initiating two illegal wars of aggression,
which killed 7,000
U.S. servicemen and at least
210,000 civilians
, displaced more than
10 million people
from their homes, condoned torture, initiated a global drone assassination campaign, and imprisoned
people for years without substantive evidence or trial in Guantanamo Bay, the punishment evidently
is to be given the Thayer Award at West Point.
On October 19th, George W. Bush traveled to the United States Military Academy, my alma mater
, to receive the
Sylvanus Thayer
Award at a ceremony hosted by that school's current superintendent and presented on behalf of
the West Point Association of Graduates. The honor is "given to a citizen whose outstanding character,
accomplishments, and stature in the civilian community draw wholesome comparison to the qualities
for which West Point strives."
... ... ...
Erik Edstrom is a graduate of the West Point class of 2007. He was an infantry officer, Army
Ranger, and Bronze Star Medal recipient who deployed to direct combat in Afghanistan.
Bush is a war criminal and should not be rewarded for upholding moral standards,
he should be in prison or on the end of a piano wire.
But, the seed does not fall far from the tree (from which both should hang).
Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist and teaches/counsels ethics and morality to West
Pointers and helps military personnel deal with post-engagement moral issues. Kilner published
this essay a few days ago:
MORAL MISCONCEPTIONS: FIVE FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS CONFUSE MORAL JUDGMENTS ON WAR
imo nearly every argument Kilner makes to refute the "5 misconceptions" are childishly simplistic;
some rely on distortions or omissions of key facts.
For example, Kilner writes:
Misconception 4
Motives must be pure:The 1990–91 First Gulf War was a paradigm case of a just war.
Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait, and the U.S. and other countries assisted Kuwaiti forces
in liberating their country and re-establishing their government. Critics of the war claim
that the United States' involvement was motivated by a desire to keep oil prices low. Even
if they are right, would it matter?
No, the Gulf War was NOT a "paradigm case of a just war." Just war theory / Jus Ad Bellum
Convention holds that the just war must:
have just cause, be a last resort, be declared by a proper authority, possess right intention,
have a reasonable chance of success, and the end must be proportional to the means used. .
. http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H2
First of all, if you have to lie to gain assent to wage war, then any moral claim to having
a just cause is null.
Incubator babies??
In almost every other way the Persian Gulf war waged by George H W Bush violated jus ad bellum
principles but especially:
War should always be a last resort. This connects intimately with presenting a just cause
– all other forms of solution must have been attempted prior to the declaration of war.
As Vernon Loeb
recorded -- and the
George
H W Bush archives as examined by historian Jeff Engel affirm, King Hussein of Jordan, in concert
with other Arab leaders, had achieved a resolution to which Saddam would have agreed, and repeatedly
asked Bush to let the Arabs take care of their own conflict. Likewise, Mikhael Gorbachev persisted
to the point of annoyance in calling Bush and urging him NOT to go to war to resolve the conflict.
Bush shouted at him and ignored his advice.
All other options had NOT been exhausted.
The Berlin wall had fallen, USSR and Gorbachev no longer had power to counterbalance US power;
George H W Bush was King of the Mountain and he wielded his power recklessly. The world is still
reeling -- and hundreds of thousands are dead, because of his reckless disregard of thousand-year
old principles of Justice in War.
It's astonishing that an ethicist who teaches West Pointers did not make this basic analysis.
In summary, if Lt. Col. Pete Kilner is representative of the "moral foundation" provided West
Point cadets, the institution -- and the United States that, according to a Gallup poll, trusts
the military more than any other institution in USA -- are in deeper trouble than Erik Erdstrom
comprehends.
Previously had the impression that Dubya was a dumb but decent person, manipulated by others.
I didn't know for example his eager participation in the speechmaking/lecture circus. This mental
picture has changed somewhat in recent years, but I remained greatly ignorant of a lot of details.
Now these two articles about him shed some light how he really is a piece of shit, just like the
others. Maybe not so extremely dumb, though.
This article is (sadly) on the money. However, it is just another illustration revealing the mockery
that most such prestigious awards have made of themselves in recent years. Awarding Barack Obama
the Nobel Prize was one recent instance of this – a president that at one point had us engaged
in seven wars at once. But at least in that case, it can be claimed that the award was aspirational,
as the totality of his "accomplishment" did not become a matter of record until after the award
was made. In the case described above, the honor is being awarded with full knowledge of the recipient's
history.
Trump's brutal comment to the dead soldier in Florida was on the money: That's what you signed
up for. It would be gratifying to think that Trump knew exactly what he was saying; Scott Adams
thinks Trump is a master communicator. Conversely, tragic to hear the Florida Rep gripe that she
was so upset at Trump's callousness because she "had mentored the young man and helped him get
in the military." That's just like helping you get a job with Goldman Sachs, right? No risk, no
moral quandaries. re Lt Col Kilner -- he's Chhristiian: here's a piece he wrote for Christianity
Today:
Thank you for that link. A VERY GOOD article. A gem really. Some parts I found particularly
good:
This insight is that combat deployments affect our souls so deeply because they allow us
to taste something of heaven and hell, in ways that civilian life rarely does. The profound
purpose, unity, and love that soldiers in a small unit experience is almost impossible to replicate
outside of war; it is a foretaste of heaven. At the same time, the dehumanizing suffering and
apparent absence of God that characterize a war zone instruct veterans on how awful human existence
can be; there's a reason we say "war is hell."
Soldiers are pawns in a conflict started by others.
And for the first time in most soldiers' lives, we encounter undisguised evil.
Hidden beneath the ugly destructiveness of war, however, is a sublime beauty that is known
only to the veterans who have experienced it.
The greater the dangers and adversity that soldiers face and overcome, the greater those
bonds. Some soldiers become closer to each other than to their own families.
, it explains why soldiers want to be deployed. We're not warmongers; we're longing for
another taste of heaven alongside other warriors. Second, it explains why life outside of war
can seem so mundane and even meaningless. Having gone through heaven and hell, our everyday
lives can feel like limbo.
We've seen what humans are capable of, for better and for worse. Reflecting on our experiences
of war, we are alternately inspired and appalled. We have glimpsed what was previously unimaginable:
the happiness of heaven, the desolation of hell.
I'm not sure why that's supposed to be surprising. Leadership across swathes of institutions has
abdicated their responsibility to lead or govern and instead adopted baby-sitting and appeasement.
Solonto: You've posted more than 2,600 comments on this website? "You" are likely a group of
Russians working full time to sow discord. But let's charitably assume that you're a real person.
Your knowledge of the history of the 1990-91 Gulf War is terrible. I assume that you were too
young to remember the events leading up to it. Watch President George H. W. Bush's speech to the
world and learn:
That may be the best explanation in terms of Just War you'll ever hear a politician give. He
checks every block of jus ad bellum.
Also, about your snide comment, "Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist." I have a masters
degree in philosophical ethics from an excellent program, and I've researched, written on, and
taught ethics for 20 years. I may "style" myself a comedian or good dancer, but I'm pretty well-credentialed
as an ethicist.
Obama turned war itself into a prolonged assassination campaign via remote drone and he awarded
himself every conceivable medal. Previous administrations successfully circumvented genocide as
a crime against humanity by raining annihilation from the skies. Which part of the government
of our country do you fail to understand?
"This past Summer, after months of private discussions about POW treatment at Gitmo, the
Red Cross openly declared the US Government in violation of the Geneva Conventions based upon
first hand reports from Cuba "
Why doesn't the Red Cross do something useful, like making the same claim about Puerto Rico?
Then we'd be forced to grant them independence. It's way overdue.
I was around 1990/91 and I followed what was happening. I do not agree with SolontoCroesus
take on Bush and Gulf War. I already once had exchanged comments with him about it, I think, but
my points did not make a dent.
Bush never looked thrilled to go to this war. I had impression that his arms had to be twisted.
He seemed like he would not mind letting Saddam Hussein slide. It was his meeting with Margaret
Thatcher in Aspen that changed everything. Bush built broad coalition including many Arab and
Muslim nations and went to war. He head to give $500 millions to Israel to keep them away and
not retaliating against Iraq in order to not upset Arab allies in the coalition.
The war was won. Bush did not go to Bagdad but only liberated Kuwait. It was reported in papers
that his popularity hit 90% which was 20% more than what Hitler got after the Anschluss of Austria
in 1938, as I remember thinking this at that time.
In summer 1991 Bush decided to use his political capital and tried to say no Israel illegal
settlements by holding money slated for Israel. Yitzhak Shamir got furious and the Lobby attacked.
Everybody was against hime. Most people did not know what was happening. Bush backed off and instead
of turning to American people and leveling with them on what was going on he only complained that
he was all alone in WH.
It was decided (I do not know how, when and where and by whom but it was decided nevertheless)
that Bush could not be trusted with the 2nd term. He did not take advantage of the golden opportunity
to occupy Iraq and then he had audacity to challenge Israel which last time happened in early
summer 1993 by JFK when said no to the development of nuclear weapons by Israel. So everything
was done what had to be done for him to lose. And he knew that it would be so. He did not fight.
He got impatient with the campaign and looked at his watch during the debate to show his disdain.
He had no chance to win. Ross Perot played the same role as Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 election to
deprive Taft the 2nd term. Unlike Roosevelt Ross Perot probably did not know what role he was
cast to play.
Why Bush did what he did? Why he did not occupy Iraq? Why he challenged Israel? My take is
that he really did not want this war. That he really believed that after the wall coming down
and Soviet Union falling apart America can change the course and start reducing military spending.
He seemed to really believe in the peace dividends. The end of the Cold War was his greatest achievement
and it was ruined by Saddam Hussein invasion of Kuwait. So the most important question is to find
out who TF whispered to Saddam Hussein's ear to convince him that he will get away with his attack
on Kuwait? The same people who wanted Iraq destroyed who eventually had it destroyed 12 years
later and all those who did not want peace dividends and who feared the cuts in military spending?
I think Bush knew who was really behind Hussain? Who screwed up his vision of post Cold War peace,
who deprived him of his legacy. So he said no to Israel when he had the highest approval rating
in recent history but then he chickened out. He was intimidated by something. In retrospect he
was not a bad guy but he wasted possibly the last opportunity to have America extricated from
the iron grip of the Lobby.
Just read the chapter on the Vietnam war by Howard Zinn A Peoples History of the USA. Or read
an Eisenhower letter, written after WWII, 'we should have killed much more Germans'. James Bacque,
´Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und französischen Lagern 1945 –
1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)
The United States Military Academy is, or at least should be, a steward of American military
values
But they are upholding American values, like lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, which is
what many American presidents, but definitely since President Clinton, have engaged in around
the world.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the liars with Operation Inherent Resolve, the gangster outfit
that is overseeing the 'Wars for Wall Street and Israel' in SW Asia and the ME, bomb to
smithereens civilians on a daily basis, then get in front of the cameras and LIE that they didn't
do it, it was those Rooskies. Then, when they're outed with evidence, they LIE again, promising
to investigate and that's the last you'll hear of the latest American-made mass murder. Aren't all those command types at Operation Butcher Muslims, sorry, Inherent Resolve West Point
or Annapolis graduates, that lie, cheat, steal and murder on a daily basis, yet they get their
chests festooned with medals from a grateful nation for being basically, unhinged psycho-killers,
so you see, West Point is upholding American values.
I have read elsewhere that Mr. Bush had the largest contingent of rabbis in his administration,
as advisors behind the scenes, to provide him with moral guidance. What is a person to make of
that? Was he that obtuse?
Thank you Mr. Edstrom!
Most of them annoy the bleep outta me because they seem like more of the sappy (unctuous even),over
romanticized, self aggrandizing, claptrap that we've come to expect from functionaries of the
state.
This, type of nonsense, in particular, galls me.:
Hidden beneath the ugly destructiveness of war, however, is a sublime beauty that is known
only to the veterans who have experienced it.
What a disgustingly hollow load of bulshit that is! Oh, but the rest of us, who haven't experienced
the "sublime beauty" of war, aren't counted amongst the anointed elite who know things the rest
of us mere mortals don't.
"Sublime beauty?"
Who do you think yer kidding? I was a grunt (volunteer, not drafted) in Vietnam, and I never
saw any beauty in war, sublime, mundane, or otherwise.
Here's how a man with integrity views the military.:
"Military life in general depraves men. It places them in conditions of complete idleness,
that is, absence of all rational and useful work; frees them from their common human duties,
also puts them into conditions of servile obedience to those of higher ranks than themselves."
― Leo Tolstoy Resurrection Or, The Awakening, 1899
In 1851 Tolstoy and his older brother went to the Caucasus where he joined the Russian army
as an artillery officer.
In 1854, during the Crimean War Tolstoy transferred to Wallachia to fight against the French,
British and Ottoman Empire and defend Sevastopol.
Here's what military establishments are really about; I wonder if they deal with this at West
Point, or in "ethics" classes.
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions
to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of
tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt
was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending,
have enslaved the people.
James Madison, Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records
of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465
Standing armies are un-American, and no amount of cloyingly romantic slight of hand with the
truth will change it. Here's all one needs to know about the "ethics" of state sponsored terrorism.:
Wherever an army is established, it introduces a revolution in manners, corrupts the morals,
propagates every species of vice, and degrades the human character."
Mercy Otis Warren, Revolution-era historian,
History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 1, Ch3, 1805
But they are upholding American values, like lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, which
is what many American presidents, but definitely since President Clinton, have engaged in around
the world.
True, but one could argue that Lincoln was the first of the worst. Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson,
and FDR took hypocrisy and mockery of "American values" to new depths and it's been downhill since
then.
We have to face the fact that none of us is fit to wield the levers of so much power. To think
otherwise is positively deranged.
Also, about your snide comment, "Lt Col Pete Kilner styles himself an ethicist." I have
a masters degree in philosophical ethics from an excellent program, and I've researched, written
on, and taught ethics for 20 years.
I must tell you that the comment, whether snide or not, is spot on.
Your other credentials are worth about as much as Bush's award or O-bomb-a's "peace" prize,
and any adult should know that.
Still, as criminal as Bush and Obama's actions were, between Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy/Johnson,
there are way more Americans dead for nothing than these pikers killed.
Bush jr. and Bush sr. are both war criminals and were front men for the Zionists who really control
this country and both were complicit with Israel and the deep state in 911.
They are evil incarnate with satan and also their henchman Cheney, straight from hell.
Whatever one thinks of Trump, one must appreciate the public service that he did in utterly humiliating
Jeb! Bush and pretty much putting a stake in the heart of the Bush political dynasty. One takes
ones guilty pleasures where one finds them.
All of your comment is true and I'd like to add that the fetid scent of Zionist sympathies
can be detected at least as far back as Wilson and FDR as well, and probably even goes further
back.
This quote is interesting though I do not mean to conflate Judaism with Zionism.:
We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present
time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the
Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level
In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from
Judaism.
The Jew has already emancipated himself in a Jewish way.
"The Jew, who in Vienna, for example, is only tolerated, determines the fate of the whole
Empire by his financial power. The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German state,
decides the fate of Europe. While corporations and guilds refuse to admit Jews, or have
not yet adopted a favorable attitude towards them, the audacity of industry mocks at the obstinacy
of the material institutions." (Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, p. 114)
This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only
because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from
him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical
spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians
have become Jews.
A someone very fond of the Bush family, I have to admit, as someone who opposed both conflict
(one outright) the other as to scale and purpose) this article is a very heavy indictment, less
of the executive but of members of congress, the foreign policy establishment and the military
advocates for invasion (men and women alike).
I have always thought that Pres Bush ignored his bet instincts on the matter and was ill advised.
I don't know what recompense the country will garner for our actions, but I don't think it has
yet come. We need to pull up and consider the dark space into which are knee-jerking our way into.
-- –
However, I don't think this is about Pres. Bush or even a stamp of approval on needless and
careless interventions as much as it an attempt to wedge the military against Pres Trump or tangentially
express discomfit by some in the higher echelons with the Pres.
Deeply appreciated this a article. No argument against those invasion penetrated the cloud
of revenge the country was bent on exacting. And it is deeply troubling – when the case against
invasion was so blatantly clear.
At West Point, it's still possible to believe that we are fighting in the interests of the
Afghan people
If that's true then they are mentally deficient. Mercenaries and the mentally defective working
under the leadership of the morally corrupt, the perfect dance partners.
I apologize to those who may find my comments excessive, but some of the attitudes expressed here
need to be confronted. I regret that I can't do it in person.
To those who postulate such insubstantial, quasi-profound, faux-poetic pornography, if not
swinishly orgasmic, fanciful hooey as:
combat deployments affect our souls so deeply because they allow us to taste something
of heaven and hell, in ways that civilian life rarely does. The profound purpose, unity,
and love that soldiers in a small unit experience is almost impossible to replicate outside
of war; it is a foretaste of heaven.
we're longing for another taste of heaven alongside other warriors . Second, it explains
why life outside of war can seem so mundane and even meaningless. Having gone through heaven
and hell , our everyday lives can feel like limbo.
Having gone through heaven and hell, our everyday lives can feel like limbo.
I say that Aristophanes, to name just one, saw through the self adulating humbug, millennia
ago.
SAUSAGE-SELLER
you wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist , that Demos may see
nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for his bread. But if ever
peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort himself once more with
good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings you have kept him out
of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage, he will rise, burning
with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is for this you rock him
to sleep with your lies.
Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all fit in the category of war criminal, and were there such
a thing as authentic and impartial international justice, they could all be in the dock of a new
Nuremberg Tribunal – albeit one without the kangaroo court and vae victis characteristics of the
eponymous one.
George Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam and his dad served as a naval
aviator during WWII. Quite a difference. At one time, the people who started wars fought in them. The last English king to serve in
combat was the much-maligned Richard III, killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. James IV of
Scotland was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513. George II was commander at the Battle
of Dettingen in 1743.
Prince Harry saw service in Afghanistan and Andrew in the Falklands. So, the denigrated Royals
have a better track record than the elites in a democracy. In Robert Heinlein's Starship Trooper novel, only people who served their society in a dangerous
position had the right to vote. That would weed out almost of the "cloud people" who dominate
the West.
Bush II could be called a war criminal by reason of stupidity. The real culprit is the bastard
standing next to him in the picture. He controlled George W. Bush and was the real President.
To this day, he continues to push for war against Iran.
Blaming Bush for starting wars is sort of like blaming bin Laden for 9/11 or Putin for Hilary's
defeat. There were a lot more people involved in recent and ongoing US wars, including many people
from the "opposing" party, Joe Biden and Al Gore come to mind.
Previously had the impression that Dubya was a dumb but
He's obviously no intellectual and it's unlikely he's ever read any book on his own. He appears
to lack curiosity whatever his mental level may be. His speeches, like everyone else, are written
by others and just simply read as an actor reads their lines. However, his job was to deliver
and that he did in spades. He ratcheted up the security state to a historic level and diverted
trillions from the US treasury for the biggest gravy train ever. It's an income transfer scheme,
from the masses to the upper classes, all while scaring everyone with nonexistent hobgoblins.
He did nothing about unchecked illegal immigration, giving his constituency, the haves and the
have-mores, their cheap labor. Historians will argue as to who the worst president of all time
was and Bush's name will figure prominently. He'll be seen as one of the downward turning points
in American history, a person who ruined what was left of American credibility and pride. He had
a lot of enablers though, and did not act alone, standing astride a mountain of bones. So, smart
or not, the evil nature of this man will continue to cast it's shadow for years to come.
2013 Madeleine Korbel Albright • speech • biography • video
2012 Isaac Newton "Ike" Skelton • speech • biography
2011 Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates • speech • biography
2010 Honorable James A. Baker, III • speech • biography • photos
2009 H. Ross Perot • speech • biography • photos
2008 William J. Perry • article • biography
2007 General (Retired) Frederick Kroesen • speech • article • biography
2006 Tom Brokaw • speech • article •biography
I stopped with Tom Brokaw because that seems odd to most. Watch this funny and insightful Jimmy
Dore clip about how Brokaw was a no newsman, but a Pentagon bootlicker, hence the award.
I think what we can all be thankful is the fact that we are no longer dependant on the NY time/Washington
Post etc to see the World through their prizes l
President Bush may have been dumb or naive or he may have been smart. It's difficult to know what
a person really thinks. The Iraq war was a mistake but Bush the Younger also pushed for implementation
of other policies which look to be highly dubious. Does anyone remember "No Child left Behind"
or "The Housing Gap"? These two policies were hairbrained to say the least. Only a foolish person
could ever believe in such nonsense. He truly believed that we were all created equal, he was
they ultimate champion of the "Blank Slate" theory. A delusional fool who I actually voted for
in 2000.
Yes I think he was "A True Believer" in Social Justice causes.
I daresay that (((Howard Zinn))) approved of that.
Rather not. Zinn on one of his last missions as a member of USAF bomber crew was sent to bomb
with napalm large groupings of German soldiers who were just awaiting to surrender somewhere in
northern France. The front line past them and was much further West. He did not like it at all.
He thought that the only purpose of the mission was to test how the new napalm worked.
West Point? Isn't that some place where the Jooies indoctrinate their latest crop of servile Goy
Gurkhas? Change those posters to: Uncle Samuel Wants You with a pic of Samuel in his beanie pointing
a bony finger out at you, the suckers.
In Robert Heinlein's Starship Trooper novel, only people who served their society in a dangerous
position had the right to vote. That would weed out almost of the "cloud people" who dominate
the West.
Now, there is one country which adheres to that rule a bit:Israel.
Interesting, isn't it?
Easy, especially on sites like this, to heap abuse on, say, Netanyahu.
Just from Wikipedia, though:
Netanyahu joined the Israel Defense Forces shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, and became
a team leader in the Sayeret Matkal special forces unit . Netanyahu took part in many
missions, including Operation Inferno (1968), Operation Gift (1968) and Operation Isotope (1972),
during which he was shot in the shoulder . Netanyahu fought on the front lines in the
War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War in 1973, taking part in special forces raids along
the Suez Canal, and then leading a commando assault deep into Syrian territory.[3][4] Netanyahu
achieved the rank of captain before being discharged.
You have to give them: they got that right. Now, we'll see, say, 20 replies with 20 links each about .. .them .
Will keep the article busy though.
Interested in topic could just skip them.
Thanks for the article about how the elite soldiers are morally conditioned in these days.
Did they teach anything about General Smedley Butler? Some of his second thoughts he had?
What's the matter with these academics who run everthing now, are they senile?
Or, much worse, (maybe not though,) there is a policy on high, to effect the intentional dilution,
and then destruction of standards. Prominently, auspicious prizes given to idiots and worse scoundrels!
what's that do to the mental and moral health of the youths, will they wise up and see through
it and not show up?
No, just replaced with a lower order, who will be more monstrous .
All this decay of stuff is everywhere, who benefits Cui Bono? They don't need smart soldiers
what with robots and AI etc. and the real work is in dumbing down the peeps, for the eventual
enclosures .
Most of it's already been said above, but we've been a war nation for more than a generation.
Mr. Bush's predecessor bombed Iraq for years. Bush himself (or Cheney or whoever) turned it into
an official and seemingly permanent war, using what are now known to be bold-faced lies. Torture
as a matter of routine also started during Cheney's reign. Nobel Peace Prize Obama ramped us up
to 6 or 7 wars, normalized drone murder, and in his usual unctuous way told us to stop harping
on Abu Graib ("It's important we don't get too sanctimonious"). Now Mr. Trump is starting/threatening
even more war, complete with nukes, and bragging about the torture.
My point is that someone we don't even see is calling the shots, for all of them. These guys
on TV just work for them, and are paid handsomely. The awards they get mean even less than their
elections. I don't see us (the proletariat, wage slaves, trying to raise a family) ever even figuring
out what's going on, much less doing anything about it.
"The former president deserves a cold metal bench in a stockade awaiting trial, not an award and
a warm round of applause from the academy. No coffee table books featuring his paintings -- a
perverse form of macabre exhibitionism -- will atone for his actions. If West Point and its Association
of Graduates want to maintain any credible pretense of adhering to the values they claim to espouse,
they should revoke the most recent Thayer Award immediately."
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Excellent essay. What has happened to West Point to act this way?? No one with any sense could think of Bush
as anything other than a moron at best, a traitorous moron at worst. There must be an explanation–FOLLOW THE MONEY.
"... The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. ..."
"... His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently calls "the power elite." ..."
"... Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... ..."
"... Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ..."
"... He was in a particularly excellent position, due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations, as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with their communications. ..."
"... His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954 he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He knew the subject, and he knew what was done. ..."
"... His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. ..."
"... As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war, beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are cognizant. ..."
"... The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself ..."
"... After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam. He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now. ..."
"... According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man. ..."
"... It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him. ..."
"... ***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a "misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner. ..."
"... It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has casted doubt on our government ever since. ..."
"... However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer. Who knows?) ..."
"... Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me. ..."
"... Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never speak of it again. ..."
"... I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!) ..."
"... And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be capable of taking them out. ..."
From Publishers Weekly Prouty, who was a Washington insider for
nearly 20 years--in the last few of them as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of
Staff under President Kennedy--has a highly unusual perspective to offer on the assassination
and the events that led up to it. Familiar to moviegoers as the original of the anonymous
Washington figure, played by Donald Sutherland in the Oliver Stone's movie JFK , who asks hero
Jim Garrison to ponder why Kennedy was killed, Prouty leaves no doubt where he stands.
The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his
procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to
break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different
man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently
calls "the power elite." Although he declares that such an elite has operated,
supranationally, throughout history, and is all-powerful, he never satisfactorily explains who
its members are and how it functions--or how it has allowed the current East-West rapprochement
to take place.
Still, this behind-the-scenes look at how the CIA has shaped postwar U.S. foreign policy is
fascinating, as are Prouty's telling questions about the security arrangements in Dallas, his
knowledge of the extraordinary government movements at that time (every member of the Cabinet
was out of the country when Kennedy was shot) and his perception that most of the press has
joined in the cover-up ever since. Photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or
unavailable edition of this title. From Library Journal Prouty, the mysterious "X" in
Oliver Stone's JFK , promises to explain why Kennedy was assassinated. Instead, he delivers a
muddled collection of undocumented, bizarre theories, most significantly that a super-powerful,
avaricious power elite engineered the Cold War and all its pivotal events -- Korea, Vietnam,
the U-2 incident, the Bay of Pigs, and the Kennedy assassination.
Although they are never identified, these shadowy technocrats, working through the CIA,
allegedly had Kennedy murdered because he was on the brink of ending America's commitment to
Vietnam, along with its billions of dollars of military contracts.
Prouty avoids some very important issues. Would Kennedy, a Cold War warrior's warrior, have
indeed ended American support for Diem? And why couldn't the omnipotent power elite ensure the
election of Richard Nixon, its preferred candidate, in 1960--especially since Kennedy won by
only .02 percent? A much better choice is John M. Newman's JFK and Vietnam: Deception,
Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power ( LJ 3/15/92). See also James DiEugenio's Destiny
Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case , reviewed in this issue, p. 123.--Ed.
We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry
briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty. Mr
Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and
war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln
put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... .
We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry
briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty.
Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the
support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles
to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
This is a very important book. It is difficult to read, because Prouty's writing is
disorganized, perhaps not so to him, but to a reader. The fact is he had first hand knowledge
of a great deal of what went on and into the period covering the latter part of WWII, all of
Indochina / Vietnam, and into the Cold War. He was in a particularly excellent position,
due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations,
as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with
their communications.
His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He
served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954
he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of
Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs
of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He
knew the subject, and he knew what was done.
His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real
power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. The lessons are real.
It would have helped had his writing been more organized, rather than jumping around with
much repetition, but he does provide abundant specifics in support of his positions. In many
cases he uses first person, as he was present. He knew what he was talking about. He has
specifics.
As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by
point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK
White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war,
beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides
eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are
cognizant.
His material, cleaned up, should be taught in schools, but such history is never taught in
classes. It is only learned `in the field' so to speak. And no nation wants it advertised
exactly what drives covert operations and to whose benefit.
I agree with the author's premise of a conspiracy to murder JFK. There is information in
this book that I have not read in any other historical reference. For example, the author
states that the CIA transported the northern based people of Vietnam called the Tonkin and
moved them to the south. He claims that this created a turmoil in the land as people began to
fight for resources(food)to live. He states that it was this turmoil that was made to look
like a communist infiltration of the country. All of this being a CIA manipulated event.
Another interesting aspect is that we had been aiding the French occupation of Vietnam. This
continued up until 1954; a few months before Diem being installed as President. We had been
helping the enemy of the South Vietnamese people just prior to Diem's installation.
The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the
military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether
this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself and that is why you can
find facts supporting both schools of thought. For example, Pres. Kennedy stated he wanted to
be the first to put a man on the moon. A direct challenge to the cold war enemy Russia. Yet
the book states later that Kennedy signed a memorandum desiring cooperation with Russia in
the exploration of space. This is obviously an affront to the "cabal" that wanted the cold
war to continue. There was alot of money to be made. I was disappointed the author didn't
write about Pres.Kennedy issuing silver certificates in defiance of the Federal Reserve.
After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam.
He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover,
etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the
author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the
Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all
future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now.
This book is not an easy read. One negative about this book is that the author's points
are repeated. It also left me feeling dismayed and bewildered. If you take the author's
premise at face value, almost everything we see and read now has the possibility of being a
planned event. The fascinating aspect about the JFK assassination is to see how this "secret
team" that works behind the scenes is in control of almost all positions of authority that we
have in this country. A chief justice resides on the Warren Commission and signs off on the
absurd Warren report, police in Dallas allowing reporters direct access to Oswald; at the
time the suspect for the murder. Police allowing Jack Ruby to just waltz up to Oswald and
shoot him. LBJ and Hoover having a conversation about not wanting a congressional
investigation of the assassination and just wanting to use the Hoover/Warren reports. This is
way too many coincidences not to have been a conspiracy. Fletcher Prouty may not be 100%
accurate, but I'll believe his version over our official history any day.
"This is one of the greatest books written on the assassination of John F. Kennedy,the
author Col L. Fletcher Prouty contribution from his work in the pentagon and his common sense
view that someone needed to level the playing field-to let the public know that military
spending and goals are completely unrealistic. We have to learn from the past and Col. Prouty
is one of the few who explain the uncomfortable truth. This uncomfortable feeling goes on
today. How do we know when we've won in Iraq or Afghanistan? Will this repeat in Iran and
North Korea? What is the next military action that will be another unwinnable war designed to
keep the Defense Department in business despite the astronomical costs as it bankrupts the
nation? It's time that everyone examine what Col. Fletcher Prouty wrote as a warning of what
was really going on as opposed to what was reported regarding the Vietnam war and the removal
of John F. Kennedy.
Col. Prouty blows the lid right off our official history and reveal what is probably the
closest to the truth that we will ever get regarding the assassination of JFK, this is a true
example of what is done in the dark will come to the light..anyone who wants to continue to
hide from the truth, then this book is not for you because you cannot handle the truth,it's
too much for you.
This is a very important book unique in this big mess that continues to surround Kennedy's
murder it is a story that has been buried for decades. It is an account the government didnot
want you to hear, and actually fabricated evidence in order to keep you from hearing the
truth. There are no crackpot theories here, these are facts this great cabal ( the power
elite) has control high enough in government or at least in the councils of government, to be
able to influence the travel plans of the president, vice-president and a presidential
candidate (Nixon) and all members of the kennedy cabinet. They were powerful enough to have
orders issued to the army, and were able to mount a massive campaign to control the media
during and after the assassination. Now if that is not power in the wrong hands, i donot know
what is..there is something about Col. Prouty manner that speaks of authority, knowledge and
above all, old fashioned honesty."
According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot
triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National
Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once
NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man.
Vietnam for the powers that be... represented the potential of tens of billions of
dollars. This is what caused him to be murdered, it was a military-style ambush from start to
finish, "a coup d'etat."
One of the most memorable lines in the book and the movie JFK: "Sometimes i think the
organizing principle of any society is for war, the authority of the state over its people
resides in its war powers war readiness accounts for approximately a tenth of the output of
the world's economy. This power elite together they stand above the law, can any president
ever be strong enough really to rule?
And what about the outright theft of the president's brain from the national archives? And
the total and complete failure of the secret service to protect JFK in dallas? It boggles the
mind, they tagged him as a dangerous traitor plotted his assassination, and orchested the
subsequent cover-up. This is an unspeakable refers to an evil whose depth and deceit seemed
to go beyond the capacity of words to describe.
If you are not afraid to face the truth then this book is were you would want to start. So
many things make sense when you start to put the piece's of the puzzle together and facts and
common sense go a long way. That is why most people want to remain ignorant,they cannot face
the truth so they try to discredit people like Col. Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, Jesse
Ventura to make them sound like lone nuts, sound like de'ja vu huh?
Col. Prouty was a Washington insider for nearly 20 years as chief of staff under president
Kennedy this man lived this part of our history, who can better tell us the real deal than
someone who was there and lived though it and who does not have anything to gain by keeping
the biggest lie told to the american people on-going. Just sticking to the facts of this case
and what just take basic common sense is to ask yourself "Why? that's the real question isn't
it--why? the how is just scenery,Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, Mafia it keeps people guessing like a
parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question--why?
Why was kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who had the power to cover it up? This book is a
must read for anyone out there who still believes in truth and justice for all. Don't believe
me or anyone else..do your own thinking for yourself and you might surprise yourself in the
process of searching for that truth. I would like to end this by saying thank-you to Col.
Prouty, Mr. jim garrison, Oliver Stone, and Jesse Ventura for being courageous enough to step
forward to shine a light on the truth.
And for the non-believer's out there i feel sorry for you that you are satisfied with
never really knowing the truth and how much it still effects your life today. I was not even
born yet when president kennedy was assassinate but i was born one year later..and the
deferences between me and you is i will always search for the truth and question it until i
do find it.
I leave you with this quote: Those who can't remember the past, are condemned to repeat
it. Everyone should own a copy of this part of history go out now and purchase this book
before it disappear,just like the truth about JFK assassination.
I read this book a second time, about 1 year after I read it the first time. Mr Prouty had
a very long and interesting career in the Air Air Corps which became the USAF. He has first
hand knowledge of much of what he writes about in this book. His book is really the history
of the USA since WW II with respect to the warnings of IKE "Beware of the military industrial
complex".
If you did not like President Kennedy but wonder why the US has constantly been "at war"
somewhere in the world since WW II then I think you will get a lot out of this book. When I
was in the USAF back in the 1970's the higher ranking pilots that I flew with told me that
Viet Nam was not a great war but it was the only war they had. Well, wars were good for
career building if you were in the war, if you were the military industrial complex war was
very good and necessary for profits.
I'm reading a stunning book written by the late L. Fletcher Prouty who served as the chief
of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired
colonel of the U.S. Air Force, Prouty was in charge of the global system designed to provide
military support for the CIA's secret activities. He knew where the bodies were buried and
the file cabinet containing the paperwork used to cover it up.
Prouty was a source for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" and was portrayed as "Mr. X" by Donald
Sutherland, the man in black who advised New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (portrayed by Kevin
Costner) that he was on the trail to the truth.
If you have ANY interest whatsoever in learning the truth of the events that led to what
happened to our country on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and changed the course of its direction, read
it.
A brief excerpt from the 375+ page book that is the most detailed account of the inception
of the CIA and the events that culminated in the coup d'etat on Elm Street in Dallas on a
sunny day in November.
Excerpt:
From Chapter 16 - Government by Coup d'Etat
The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of
"automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen, hired by a power
cabal determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson,
JFK's successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two
cars back in that fatal procession.
By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who
had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who had heard those
fatal bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure,
Richard Nixon was in Dallas on that fatal day, so that he, too, had the fact of this
ever-present danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters.
From Chapter 18 - Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK
"The significance of all this was that I had introduced President Kennedy's Vietnam
policy statement NSAM #263, into these discussions. It is my belief that the policy
announced so forcefully by Kennedy in his earlier NSAM #55 and in NSAM #263 had been the
major factor in causing the decision by certain elements of the power elite to do away with
Kennedy before his reelection and to take control of the U.S. government in the
process.
Kennedy's NSAM #263 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of
thousands would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to
elements of the military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the
government. This policy and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would have been reelected
President in 1964 set the stage for the plot to assassinate him."
I can't put this book down. It is without doubt, the most thorough explanation of the
rogue CIA, it's influence and impact on America's involvement in paramilitary operations
around the world and subsequent growing conflicts. It is, as Prouty describes:
"...For the world as a whole, the CIA has now become the bogey that communism had been
for America. Wherever there is trouble, violence, suffering, tragedy, the rest of us are
now quick to suspect the CIA had a hand in it. Our phobia about the CIA is, no doubt, as
fantastically excessive as America's phobia about world communism; but in this case, too,
there is just enough convincing guidance to make the phobia genuine...
"This is what the destruction of sovereignty and disregard for the rule of law means,
and it will not stop there. With it will go property rights -- as we have witnessed in
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union -- and the rights of man."
It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He
can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him.
This is a fascinating look into the world of the power elite: the supremely powerful
international bankers who keep the books and balances for each side.
"They make these transactions possible by offering the loans, issuing letters of credit,
and collecting the interest on the entire package. In many LDCs (third world "less developed
countries") the total amount of interest paid to the banks and their international financing
structure amounts to more than half of the total value of dollars earned by their exports.
For this reason, annual payments are seldom more than the interest involved and none of the
principal. This is one reason why the principal never comes back to the United States." (p.
243 - Ch. Sixteen - Government by Coup d'Etat)
Though the title focuses on the CIA, Vietnam and the plot to kill JFK, this 355 page (not
including six pages of notes) book goes much further. It lays out and explains the real power
-- the international power elite -- that designs the strategy and moves the pieces on the
global chess board of politics, finance, and wars, domestic and international.
Prouty's very detailed book is based on a 19-part magazine series first developed by
Prouty, with and published by Freedom Magazine. Prouty served as the chief of special
operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired U.S. Air
Force colonel, Prouty was in charge of the global system that provided military support for
the CIA's secret activities. He was witness to activities, machinations and policy-making in
the Pentagon and the White House that few others can claim. Prouty died in 2001.
"The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of
"automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen hired by a power cabal
determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK's
successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two cars
back in that fatal procession.
"By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who
had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who heard those fatal
bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure, Richard
Nixon was in Dallas on that fateful day, so that he, too, had the fact of this ever-present
danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters. (Ch. Sixteen, Government by
Coup d'Etat - p 232)
~~*~~
When World War II ended with the nuclear bomb, the military industrial complex had a
dilemma -- it understood that the next world war would be the final one, Yet it needed a way
to keep the lucrative business of war making alive and profitable. How? By fighting a war
waged for dollars, without a true military objective, under the control of civilian leaders,
a war never intended to achieve victory. Enter Vietnam. Sound familiar?
Chapter Eighteen - "Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK"
[p 267]
Kennedy's NSAM #265 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of thousands
would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to elements of the
military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the government. This policy
and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would be reelected President in 1964 set the stage
for the plot to assassinate him.
[snip]
First of all, NSAM #263, October 11, 1963, was a crucial White House document. Much of it,
guided by White House policy, was actually written by my boss in the Pentagon, General
Krulak, myself, and others of his staff. I am familiar with it and with events which led to
its creation.
[snip]
Our history books and the basic sources of history which lie buried in the archives of
government documents that have been concealed from the public, and worse still, government
documents that have been tampered with and forged. As I have just demonstrated above, this
most important policy statement, NSAM #263, that so many historians and journalists say does
not exist, has been divided into two sections in the Pentagon Papers source history.
~~*~~
Chapter Nineteen - Visions of a Kennedy Dynasty
[pp 289-290]
"With Kennedy's announcement that he was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he confirmed
that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of
détente. He asked Congress to cut the defense budget. Major programs were being phased
out. As a result, pressure from several fronts began to build against the young President.
The pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space
program, and in the enormous potential cost -- and profit -- of the Vietnam War.
Kennedy's plans would mean an end to the warfare in Indochina, which the United States had
been supporting for nearly two decades. This would mean the end to some very big business
plans, as the following anecdote will illustrate.
It was reported in an earlier chapter that the First National Bank of Boston had sent
William F. Thompson, a vice president, to my office in the Pentagon in 1959, presumably after
discussions with CIA officials, to explore "the future of the utilization of the helicopter
in [clandestine] military operations" that had been taking place in Indochina up to 1959.
A client of that bank was Textron, Inc. The bank had suggested to Textron officials that
the acquisition of the near-bankrupt Bell Aircraft Company, and particularly its helicopter
division, might be a good move. What the bank and Textron needed to determine was the extent
of use of helicopters by the military and by the CIA then and the potential for their future
in Indochina.
Both parties were satisfied with the information they acquired from the Pentagon and from
other sources in Washington. In due time the acquisition took place, and on October 13, 1963,
news media in South Vietnam reported that an elite paramilitary force had made its first
helicopter strike against the Vietcong from "Huey" Bell-Textron helicopters. It was also
reported in an earlier chapter that more than five thousand helicopters were ultimately
destroyed in Indochina and that billions of dollars were spent on helicopter purchases for
those lost and their replacements.
Continuing the warfare in Vietnam, in other words, was of vital importance to these
particular powerful financial and manufacturing groups. And helicopters, of course, were but
one part of the $220 billion cost of U.S. participation in that conflict. Most of the $220
billion, in fact, was spent after 1963; only $2 - $3 billion had been spent on direct U.S.
military activities in Vietnam in all of the years since World War II up to and including
1963. Had Kennedy lived, it would not have gone much higher than that.
It is often difficult to retrace episodes in history and to locate an incident that became
crucial to subsequent events. Here, however, we have a rare opportunity.
The success of the deal between the First National Bank of Boston, Textron, and Bell
hinged on the escalation of the war in Indochina. A key man in this plan was Walter
Dornberger, chief of the German Rocket Center at Peenemunde, Germany, during World War II and
later an official with the Bell Aircraft Company. Dornberger's associate and later
protegé from Peenumunde, Wehrner von Braun, who had been instrumental in the
development of the army's Pershing and Jupiter rocket systems, became a central figure in
NASA's plans for the race to the moon. Such connections among skilled technicians can be of
great importance within the military-industrial complex, as they generally lead to bigger
budgets for all related programs.
Kennedy had announced a reduced military budget, the end of American participation in
Indochina, and a major change in the race to the moon. It takes no special wisdom or inside
knowledge to understand that certain vested interests considered the Kennedy proposal to
defuse Vietnam and these other major budget items to be extremely dangerous to their own
plans.
The pressure brought to bear on Kennedy was intense, but some sort of major event was
needed that would stir emotions and trigger action. It is very likely that the death of
President Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, on November 1, 1963, in
Saigon was one of those events. There were at least eight or nine more that, in retrospect,
indicate that a plot against Kennedy had begun to unfold."
~~*~~
Is it any wonder that despite his campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Obama is still in
Iraq and Afghanistan???
If you apply what Prouty reveals, it follows that Obama does not do anything unless it is
decreed by the international power elite -- from pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan to
protecting our Gulf Coast oil-stained states.
JFK didn't dance to the tune of his masters. He did it his way. It cost him his life.
Obama is the creation of his masters. He serves at their pleasure. He won't make JFK's
mistake. You can count on it.
Mr. Prouty served in the Pentagon's Office of Special Operations during a significant
portion of his professional military career. In this role, he observed first-hand how the CIA
arranged/staged coups d'etat in the Phillipines and other nations around the globe. In the
Office of Special Operations, Mr. Prouty was responsible for providing U.S. military support
for CIA operations. This experience serves as the basis for Mr. Prouty's strong inference
that the assassination of President Kennedy was a CIA-style coup d'etat. The "why" of the
coup d'etat is strongly established by Mr. Prouty. JFK intended to withdraw 1,000 military
personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1963 and hoped to complete the full withdrawal of U.S.
military personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1965. To do this, JFK needed to get
re-elected. His decision to withdraw from Vietnam was based upon the McNamara-Taylor report
of early October, 1963 and codified in National Security Action Memorandum#263 of October 11,
1963. [For a thorough, scholarly analysis of the evolution of JFK's Vietnam policy, see "JFK
and Vietnam" by John M. Newman (New York: Warner Books, 1992). Mr. Newman is a professional
historian and a faculty member at the University of Maryland]. Powerful interests in the CIA,
Pentagon and the corporate world were "gung ho" in favor of large-scale military intervention
in Vietnam. The prospective war promised billions of dollars in military contracts for the
defense industry. JFK's intention to withdraw from Vietnam would deny these elements in the
CIA, Pentagon and corporate communities their pot of gold. Immediately after the
assassination of JFK, LBJ issued NSAM#273 on November 26, 1963 which was a complete reversal
of JFK's policy. NSAM#273 authorized U.S. military raids into North Vietnam. These raids
precipitated the Gulf of Tonkin incidents of July-August 1963, led to Congress' Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution and massive U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. LBJ gave the CIA,
Pentagon and defense contractors what JFK would have denied them: billions of dollars in
defense contracts in support of the full-scale war in Vietnam. For Mr. Prouty, the ultimate
inference is irresistible: to effectuate the complete turn-around of Vietnam policy proposed
by JFK, a CIA-style coup d'etat was carried out in Dallas on November 22, 1963. LBJ's
NSAM#273 reversing JFK's Vietnam policy [from withdrawal to establishing the foundation for
massive U.S. intervention] was issued on November 26, 1963. The goals of the coup were
obtained immediately following the assassination. Prouty gives us the "why" of the coup.
Further research remains to be done in order to give us "who" and the "how". Prouty's work is
a valuable starting point for further inquiry and deserves our appreciation for its
autobiographical honesty and heartfelt analysis.
Very disappointing. I was looking forward to reading this book primarily because the
author was so close to the action. But as other reviewers have pointed out, the focus of the
book is a far reaching review of US history since 1944-45. Unfortunately, in this regard, the
book is a failure.
Prouty isn't a historian and I'm sure that he doesn't claim to be one. But to attempt to
cover the ground that he does, he's lacking a lot of background knowledge. This shows up
quickly in the book - let me give you a couple of examples;
- He states that President Roosevelt died suddenly, unexpectedly is the word he uses, and
this simply isn't true. Roosevelt was bed-ridden for about 6 months before his death and the
US government was effectively run by his advisors during this period.
- He claims that the USA and Russia were allies at the close of WWII (true), but also that
an atmosphere of trust existed between the two countries (false). He continues to make the
claim that but for the actions of the CIA, the Cold War would not have happened. That's
simply not the case - Roosevelt and his advisors weren't happy with Stalin and vice versa.
The CIA didn't even formally exist until Truman created them in 1947 and they didn't act
without full political approval of the US governments of the time.
Look, I'm no fan of the CIA, and I completely agree with him that they plotted and
achieved the death of JFK. But that doesn't mean that they and the KGB were responsible for
creating the Cold War! Does Prouty think that the KGB could have acted in anyway without the
full and knowing approval of Stalin himself? And that the Dulles brothers somehow manipulated
the USA into the Cold War without the support and approval of Roosevelt and Truman?
Apparently, he does!
Much of his thesis is based on the concept that there is a "power elite" that has actually
been in control of world of US and Russian actions since 1944. Perhaps he is correct that a
cabal currently sits behind our governments and influences events, but I disagree with his
notion that they have controlled political events in the detailed way that he suggests
throughout the world since 1944.
This really isn't a book about JFK and his assassination as it is a somewhat innacurate
attempt to describe world history since WWII.
This book presents a very strange and sinister theory.
People who are into conspiracy theories talk about groups like the Bilderberg Group who
collude in secret to make decisions that are good for them but disastrous for everyone else.
Those types of groups, so the theory goes, are not associated with any one particular
government or country. Author Fletcher Prouty describes something like that although he says
it is not the Bilderberg Group.
I've always believed in the JFK conspiracy but I never thought this conspiracy extended
beyond the United States government and Lyndon Johnson. But yet I have to ask myself, if
Fletcher is wrong what is the alternative ? Could he be right ?
Fletcher Prouty was deeply saddened by what he observed first hand in Vietnam. People who
had lived in peace for many thousands of years in northern Vietnam were uprooted from their
ancestral lands and moved to the south with nothing but the clothes on their backs. This was
done to create hopelessness and a boiling cauldron of despair which was the perfect
environment for igniting the inferno of warfare.
This was all accomplished by that most sinister of organizations called the CIA This
agency is expert at creating confusion, human misery, and death on a massive scale with no
regard for human life whatsoever.
Fletcher spends a few chapters analyzing the official story about the Kennedy
assassination as far as Oswald's involvement (he was not involved), the number of shooters,
and the many unexplained lapses of following official and long held procedures for protecting
the president.
He was able to easily see through the smoke screen of lies created by the government about
the JFK assassination and many other things because he saw all this from the inside. He was
part of the very machine that caused the escalation in Vietnam and the JFK assassination. The
Warren Commission's story does not hold up for many, many reasons. For one thing there were
too many bullets fired. What a strange coincidence that on the day JFK was killed Fletcher
happened to be in Antarctica serving as a military escort for a bunch of diplomats on some
sight seeing excursion.
But yet it seems the nefarious group that ordered this assassination didn't really care if
people thought there was a conspiracy because they knew nobody can do anything anyway. That's
what's so scary about all this.
Fletcher feels this High Cabal, as Winston Churchill called it, has existed for 2,000
years or more in some form. Perhaps this is that great, lying beast and multi headed hydra
described in the bible in the Book Of Revelation.
Some of the groups Fletcher feels are part of this cabal are the CIA and the other
American intelligence agencies, the American military, international bankers, industrialists,
and the Dallas police department. But beyond that even Fletcher doesn't know who is really at
the very top of this super elite power structure.
For Fletcher this cabal is much more powerful than the president of the United States and
they will disregard what the president says if they want to. That's exactly what happened
when the CIA sent Gary Powers on a U2 spy plane mission over Russia and made sure the plane
malfunctioned. As a result a planned peace summit between president Eisenhower and Nikita
Khrushchev was cancelled. Ike had given orders to stop all covert activity until this summit
was over.
They also cancelled a mission to shoot up Fidel Castro's three aircraft before the Bay Of
Pigs fiasco. That was a direct failure to follow president Kennedy's orders to make sure
these planes were destroyed before the invasion. They did this to embarrass president
Kennedy. That's because peace is the High Cabal's greatest fear and enemy.
The election of president Kennedy was a disaster for the High Cabal. JFK was interfering
with their plans to spend, not billions, but trillions of dollars in Vietnam and on their
other Cold War projects. JFK was interfering with their ability to control the American
government. So they killed him and regained that power, partially through their murderous
accomplice Lyin' Lyndon Johnson.
After World War II the High Cabal created the perception in the public's mind of an epic
struggle between Communism and the West. They used this false premise to create limited,
protracted warfare all over the world. But they had to ensure the fighting did not become too
intense because of the ever present menace of nuclear weapons.
Could it really be that the High Cabal doesn't care about the ideological struggle between
Communism and the West or any other ideology for that matter ? Could the CIA, the KGB, and
other similar groups really be providing weapons to the combatants on all sides just to
prolong warfare forever ? That's what Fletcher Prouty says in this book.
Another point is the Vietnam conflict did not have any well defined military objective so
it was doomed to become a protracted and ultimately unsuccessful bloodbath with the body
count being the only measure of success.
Here's an exchange between Lyin' Lyndon Johnson and military legend General Creighton
Abrams and his aide:
Lyndon:
"Abe, you are going over there to win. You will have an army of 550,000 men, one of the
most powerful air forces ever assembled, and the invincible Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy
offshore. Now go over there and do it."
Aide:
"Mr. President, you have told us to go over there and do 'it'. Would you care to define
what 'it' is ?"
Johnson remained silent as he ushered General Abrams and his men out of the Oval
Office.
Fletcher appears in an episode of the documentary 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'. The
hypocrites have taken legal action to have some of those episodes pulled off the market and
the DVDs are no longer available for those 'Final Chapter' episodes. However 'The Men Who
Killed Kennedy' can still be watched on the internet which I highly recommend.
Fletcher served as an advisor for Oliver Stone when Stone created his JFK movie. Stone's
movie created a lot of controversy with the public and as a result people called for more
hearings about the assassination. But those later investigations ran into the same brick wall
of secrecy and deception that continues to this very day.
Fletcher drops another bomb shell in the notes section at the end of the book. He says on
the day of the assassination JFK was shot with a poisonous flechette that was launched from
an umbrella. A flechette is a very small, rocket propelled dart which travels at a very high
velocity and which is very difficult to detect during an autopsy. Why they poisoned JFK even
though they were planning on shooting him anyway I don't know. This may have been insurance
in case JFK was not shot or not shot fatally.
The people who did this were professional killers. They leave very little to chance and
account for many different scenarios.
For all intents and pruposes, Prouty was serving behind the scenes of US Intelligence
services in one capacity or another since before WWII (as special duty at both the Cairo and
Tehran Conferences), until the day he retired. So how do you know he isn't just like all the
other shills and "company men" from the inside who tell the public only what the elite want
them to know? There is no better illustration of Prouty's willingness to tell his whole story
-- with the vast information at his disposal -- than Page 260, which in this edition, is in
Chapter 17 JFK's Plan to End the Vietnam Warfare:
"Why did the US government in 1945, before the end of World War II, choose to arm and
equip Ho Chi Minh? Why did the United States, a few short years later, shift its allegiance
from Ho Chi Minh to the French in their losing struggle that ended ignominiously with the
battle of Dien Bien Phu? Why, after creating the Diem government in 1954 and after supporting
that government for ten years, did the United States shift again and encourage those
Vietnamese who planned to overthrow it? And finally, why, after creating an enormous military
force in Indochina, did the US government fail to go ahead and defeat this same Ho Chi Minh
when, by all traditional standards of warfare, it possessed the means to do so?"
And this makes-up the majority of this work by Prouty. He wisely stays with the evidence
that HE has at his disposal. In other words, what Prouty effectively laid out for the reader,
is the "Why" in the Kennedy assassination. He does so without assuming very much, as when
reading the book, you see very well that there was quite a large swath of the Military
Industrial Complex that stood to loose billions if Kennedy had lived. And thankfully, Prouty
effectively explains in great detail that any myth about Kennedy escalating the Vietnam war
is just that -- a myth. And Prouty's evidence of this? Documents from his time in the
Pentagon and White House, not to mention press members and administration members who backed
Kennedy's own words that US forces would be pulled out of the region after he was
reelected.
For those who wish to research this subject further than the events in Dealey Plaza,
Prouty's book is for you. If you want an idea as to "why" Kennedy was killed, I couldn't
recommend this book highly enough.
JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This
book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily
and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold
War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and
why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty
spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed
of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an
ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs
or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.
Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by
corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide
is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to
this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was
poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today
are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly
solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many
of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients.
Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international
law firms in government, banks, and major industries.
Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to
Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The
destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962
Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter
Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The
depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal
migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought
Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how
43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of
machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.
L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert
Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering
(p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the
Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries
to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to
support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page
240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.
On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to
escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers
those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty
presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that
JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed
the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things
done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report
is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of
the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major
events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of
enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31,
1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever
passed in peacetime.
A must read if you're wanting answers. I was and I've read a lot of books about this era
because I lived through it and wanted answers to questions I had. Now it all makes sense. I
would also suggest reading "Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover" by
Anthony Summers. I had a hard time putting that book down too.
JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty
The Long Journey to Dallas Texas
Spoiler alert: This is neither the shortest version, nor the shortest route to
understanding the JFK assassination. But it is as close to the complete canonical text and
understanding of the assassination as there is ever likely to be. It is told by an insider,
the high priest of understanding about the JFK assassination if you ask me (or Oliver Stone),
one who has been around long enough, and has resided deep enough inside the bowels of the US
government to know where all the skeletons are buried.
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty was also a member of "The Secret Team," which he wrote a very
revealing book about, of the same name. It has proven to be a critical part of the unfolding
of the 50-year old drama of the JFK assassination. (Read my Amazon review of it.)
Here Col Prouty takes us by the hand and guides us on a journey, moving slowly but
steadily and deliberately along a long winding path, through the historical underbrush
beginning at the end of WW-II. He then leads us out into a clearing called "the Cold War,"
where events are craftily orchestrated around the threat of a nuclear holocaust. But it is
orchestrated in such a way that the right to continue endless conventional wars is preserved
and the world is made forever safe "for wars of profit" by other more novel means. Korea,
would be the first but not the last of the "make money wars." The mother of all such
un-winnable "money wars," however was Vietnam. It would represent a signature turn in the
road that would "vector" directly to the JFK assassination. However, along the way the reader
will also be introduced to Saudi Arabia, Iran and the oil angle, and then on to Cuba and the
threat of nuclear war, finally ending up at high noon on 11/22/63 with the assassination of
our 35th president.
As enlightening as the journey is it is not an easy trip for a "democratically trained
mind." For along the way, we must unlearn the old rules of democracy in favor of learning a
new set, with a new unwritten covenant, as well as a new vocabulary of reactionary and
self-destructive power politics. And with them, we must also adopt and adapt to wearing a new
kind of emotional straitjacket, armor better to make us comfortable granting involuntary
consent to these altered understandings of how our more twisted and diminished democracy is
supposed to work.
To wit: We the people, and they, our new anonymous ruling power elite, consent to govern
us from above but forever behind the screen, promising nothing but to be unreliable invisible
puppet-masters. And in return "we the people" are expected to close our "lying eyes" and
pretend that when "we" see JFK's head snap violently back and to the left, it did not really
happen? Now, and henceforth, our only reality tests are those prepared for us by our "lying
media," the lemmings bought and paid for by our new invisible rulers. In short, the new
contract mandates that we go along quietly, without whimpering, and accept the fact that "we
the people" have been robbed of all previous contractual understandings of what a democratic
government is supposed to mean.
What government "by," "for" and "of" the people used to mean, has been permanently
altered. In this new "hyper real context" of being governed by an anonymous power elite, who
are constantly pulling the strings from behind the curtains, government "by," "for" and "of"
the people now means whatever our anonymous puppet-masters' media outlets tell us it
means.
Those steeped in the conspiracy paranoia of the likes of the Bilderburghers, the
Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, must understand that what Colonel
Prouty is telling us here is not the same. They will find no comfort here on this journey for
cheap conspiracy nonsense. Instead, they will find here just the clean facts, with all of the
dots connected, convincingly written by one of the last of America's authentic patriots. When
readers complete this book, they will then understand why the Bilderburghers, the
Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, are all superfluous and unnecessary.
All of the questions one can imagine about the JFK assassination are answered here.
A "Rough" Summary of Colonel Prouty's Story
After World War II, and owing primarily to the creation of the CIA, the U.S entered a new
"hyper covert reality" in which, just as General Eisenhower had warned in his farewell
address, the machinery of government was effectively commandeered by reactionary warmongers
and war profiteers. The post-war power elite ruled by calling for continuous wars, with the
CIA and the military acting as their vanguard and shock troops. There was nothing subtle
about this take over, nor is reference to it just knee-jerk conspiracy nonsense. Colonel
Prouty provides us a framework and a clear discrete paper trail that reveals every step of
the "take over process," steps that he argues convincingly led inexorably to the JFK
assassination.
Step one was carefully embedded within policy memorandum NSC-5412, which among other
things, gave all covert operations over to the CIA, and specifically prohibited the active
military from engaging in them. However, after the spectacular debacle of the John Foster
Dulles led Bay of Pigs operation, JFK issued (and was in the process of implementing at the
time of his very timely assassination), a reversal of this policy with NSC-55, which would
have given the responsibility for covert operations back to the active military through the
JCS. Not only was this reversing directive never implemented, but with JFK's death, all of
the generals running the Vietnam War, were actually CIA officers operating under military
cover and rank. According to Colonel Prouty, this was nail #1 in the JFK coffin.
Nail number two involved an excruciatingly carefully worked out policy directive, NSAM-65
by the JFK national security team. It was the policy directive initiating the complete
withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam by 1965. NSAM-65 was drawn up after an
unprecedented 23 high-level meetings by JFK's and his national security team. Not only was
NSAM-65 not implemented, but it was reversed in a week after the assassination by LBJ
initiated policy directives NSC-273 and NSC-288.
The final nail in the coffin, according to Colonel Prouty, the one that actually signaled
that assassination plans were already afoot, is the tell-tale fact that in the Pentagon
papers that had been released within the government before JFK was assassinated (and later
exposed publicly by Daniel Ellsberg), one-page cover sheets were entered in the text at the
point where the substance of JFK's two policy directives should have been? Twenty-five
stars
Today America has become the nightmare (Arnold Toynbee)
Prouty's autobiography is very revealing indeed. Of course, it contains controversial
items (Would JFK have stopped the Vietnam War?). But, it is the general picture that counts,
and here, the author is prophetic.
Prouty presents his world view as follows: `The world is ruled by a power elite. The basic
motivations are always the same. Money lays at the root ... the enormous amount spent on
military matériel.'
This elite wields its power partly and most importantly through invisible intelligence
agencies. `The power of any agency allowed to operate in secrecy is boundless'.
Nationally, JFK would probably be reelected in 1964, also via carefully directed
investments, which should have influenced favorably the voting in heavily contested states.
This reelection for another 4 years was very hard to swallow for a part of the power elite.
JFK had promised to cut the defense budget and destroy one of its power bases (`split an
intelligence agency into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.')
JFK's masterfully planned assassination was a coup d'état, not less than a total
takeover of the US government. The cover-up of the assassination, which is still going on,
shows the immense power of the culprits. They controlled the Warner Commission and could
(can) force, until today, the media and Congress to pay lip service to them. Congress was
never capable to launch an adequate investigation into the murder.
Internationally, `the world's power elite benefited splendidly from the staggering sums
involved in the Vietnam War.' The author's moving evocation of the fate of a pastoral
Vietnamese village shows that `people's lives are valueless when they get in the way of
elitist interests.' (Mark Curtis)
The powerful show absolutely no respect for national sovereignty (e.g., Vietnam, Bolivia,
Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, the Philippines, even Grenada), which is the principle
on which `the family of nations exists, with its property rights and the rights of man.'
At the end, Prouty is even prophetic: `the power elite utilizes all manner of plots to
achieve their ambitious goal. That gamesmanship is called `Terrorism'.
This book is a must read for all those wanting to understand the world we live in.
In his perceptive book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN F. KENNEDY
(2011), Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (Retired, U.S. Air Force) admirably demonstrates that he
understands the dynamics involved in the Vietnam War. Time and again, Col. Prouty draws on
his own personal experience to elucidate various matters he discusses.
Concerning the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson used trumped-up charges to
escalate the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam into a major tragedy - and a
defeat for the United States. Col. Prouty sees the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as
having orchestrated the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Allen Dulles was
the director of the CIA - until President John F. Kennedy fired him as a result of the CIA
adventure to invade Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs debacle. During the Eisenhower
administration, Allen Dulles' brother, John Foster Dulles, served as the Secretary of State.
The Dulles brothers were fervently anti-communist. Moreover, they regarded nation-states not
aligned with the U.S. as aligned with the communists - the enemy in the Cold War.
Concerning the Dulles brothers, see Stephen Kinzer's book THE BROTHERS: JOHN FOSTER
DULLES, ALLEN DULLES, AND THEIR SECRET WORLD WAR (2013). In my estimate, Kinzer does fine job
of tracing the American anti-communist spirit back to the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in
Russia in 1917. But Col. Prouty does not advert to this earlier history of the American
anti-communist spirit. Instead, he picks up the story in the waning times of World War II
(WWII). As he points out, Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union was one of our allies in WWII against
Adolf Hitler's Nazis in Germany. As Col. Prouty also points out, Chiang Kai-shek's China was
one of our allies in WWII against Japan. (Subsequently, Chiang Kai-shek was defeated by Moa
Tse-tung's communist forces.)
Col. Prouty explains how 1.1 million peasants had earlier been transported about a
thousand miles from their traditional culture in what then became known as the nation-state
of North Vietnam and had been relocated in what then became known as the nation-state of
South Vietnam, where they were landless and poor. Their relocation was orchestrated by the
CIA
As a result of their dire needs for food, many of them became bandits. As Col. Prouty
repeatedly explains, those bandits had been relocated in the Mekong Delta. The Mekong Delta
is so far to the south of North Vietnam as to preclude their having infiltrated from North
Vietnam. Unfortunately, those bandits were considered to be communist "infiltrators" from
North Vietnam - the enemy. Those bandits came to be referred to as the Vietcong.
With admirable clear-sightedness, Col. Prouty also explains the complicated logistics of
helicopter warfare in the Vietnam War.
Because President Harry Truman had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get
Japan to surrender, most powerful Americans had subsequently figured out that another all-out
war like WWII would result in the nuclear destruction of human life on the planet. As a
result, Col. Prouty claims, President Johnson would not authorize the American military to
fight for victory over North Vietnam because such a fight would of necessity run the risk of
expanding the conflict to bring in China and perhaps the Soviet Union - and thereby risk the
dreaded nuclear holocaust. Thus American forces were consigned to waging the Vietnam War
without risking victory - and the dreaded nuclear holocaust.
Even though Col. Prouty's overall discussion of the Vietnam War is astute, his major
thesis in the book is that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963,
by experienced assassins hired to do the job. In CIA parlance, such hired assassins were
referred to as "mechanics."
President Kennedy had ordered that all American advisers would be out of Vietnam by the
end of 1965. Moreover, he was likely to win re-election in 1964, which would mean that he
could make his order stick.
However, for years, the CIA had been cultivating Vietnam for a war there. A war there
would serve the purposes of enriching what President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell
address had referred to as the military-industrial complex - in plain English, war
profiteers. No doubt the war profiteers did profit enormously from the Vietnam War. (Of
course the war profiteers employed many Americans in their civilian work force.)
Despite the fact that Col. Prouty suggests that the CIA was probably involved in President
Kennedy's assassination, he stops well short of naming specific CIA and other government
officials who were involved in the carefully orchestrated plot to assassinate President
Kennedy. In this respect, we could say that Col. Prouty paints the big picture - but he ably
paints the big picture.
In conclusion, Col. Prouty's book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN
F. KENNEDY (2011) is well written and ably researched.
This is a shocking book. L. Fletcher Prouty is a world class whistleblower. After reading
this masterpiece take another look at the official 9/11 report. The secret cabal running our
planet has been exposed by many writers and few politicians; this is an insider's report on
that cabal. False flag attacks are now used by the cabal, not only in USA but in any country
where the locals are not towing the line as demanded by the banksters.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. --
Voltaire"
Amazing, the cabal has kept the lid on the murder of JFK for over 50 years. How long will
we be kept in the dark about 9/11?
So somebody finally pulls it all together--the conspiracy is not a theory, it's all facts.
Circumstantial, but no lies
Best editorial trick revealed: Leslie H. Gelb, who was to the Watergate papers what Phil
Zelikow was to the 9/11 Commission novel, used the neat writer's trick (Gelb was a New York
Times editor, you may recall) to hide something in black ink on a white page. Gelb uses the
title President to avoid mentioning that JFK's presidency was ended with bullets. The
President (JFK) had NSAM #263 written & promulgated, 1 Oct 63. The memo noted that the
troops could be pulled out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Ending the CIA-guided Indochina war
they'd begun in September of 1945. So Gelb has "The President" as author of #263, have a
mind-change with his cabinet, all of who had decided to go to Honolulu for the 22nd. On the
23rd, when an official speaks with The President, and a new NSAM is issued--#273, which
called for an escalation of Conflict. The President of #263 has changed his mind and issued
#273. The title stays the same, but the brain of the President who commissioned #263 was
blown away by, what, Hornady hollow-point, boat-tail bullets (the kind the Abteilung der
Heimats Versicherheit (dept of "home" "security"). And "The President" of the second instance
just happened to be a different president, LBJ.
That's some clever and wondrously deliberate writing. The words are there in front of your
nose, in plain sight. And yet they hide the circumstances, that, in the brief period between
Nov. 21 and Nov. 23, the title President had not changed--just the life and body for which it
represented. (In the newspaper biz, novices are instructed to "write around" facts that are
missing. In this case, a few years after the Assassination of JFK, i think most people had
gotten the news that JFK was dead and gone. Gelb and his boss were in that news loop, so I
doubt Gelb would testify that he didn't know that JFK had been murdered (by a head shot fired
from the Grassy Knoll, of course, but who's quibbling). No reason to fail to mention that The
President (JFK) had been replaced by The President (LBJ), except if you want to avoid the
"chance" that people will notice that Presidential Policy on Nov 21, 1963 (NSAM 263 (JFK)
hand changed 180 degrees to Presidential Policy (NSAM 273) on Nov. 23 (LBJ).
So in the murder investigation, you'd want to bring Gelb in to get his story. You might
want to set a water-board in the witness box right next to him--perhaps the special,
autographed KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) model, guaranteed to last at least 168 uses (whether
by one "detainee" (POW) or a succession of them. And you'd want to get all this moving while
at least a few of the players are still alive. I'd like to hear what David R. and the rest of
the Wall Street Banksters and lawyers have to say about JFK, RFK, Tonkin, USS Liberty, 9/11,
etc. And also what Cheney and Shrub I and Shrub II and Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz and Pearle,
etc., have to say about all the above.
At any rate, Prouty is a must-read. As is William Pepper's "An Act of State: The
assassination of MLKjr." which puts the quietus to the phrase "conspiracy theory". Not a
theory any longer, but a conspiracy fact. But who will prosecute members of the High Cabal?
They run the government, with their private army, the CIA, and have since Nov. 22, 1963. Not
that anybody cares, of course.
JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This
book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily
and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold
War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and
why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty
spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed
of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an
ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs
or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.
Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by
corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide
is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to
this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was
poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today
are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly
solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many
of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients.
Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international
law firms in government, banks, and major industries.
Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to
Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The
destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962
Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter
Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The
depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal
migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought
Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how
43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of
machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.
L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert
Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering
(p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the
Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries
to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to
support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page
240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.
On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to
escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers
those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty
presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that
JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed
the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things
done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report
is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of
the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major
events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of
enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31,
1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever
passed in peacetime.
In this volume, Colonel Fletcher Prouty captures both the secret history of the United
States from 1945 to 1975 and the reasons behind the plot to kill President Kennedy. Herein,
the courageous Colonel illustrates quite clearly that the clandestine history and the
assassination plot were intrinsically linked.
From the important information in this book, we learn that the war in Vietnam actually
began on September 2, 1945, when Ho Chi Minh was established as the new leader of Vietnam by
our OSS, the predecessor of the CIA, and the US Army. The United States was thoughtful enough
to provide all the weapons, ammunition, and supplies necessary for Ho and Giap to pursue
their war against the French, which culminated in the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu.
Following that defeat, the CIA arranged for the transfer of 1.1 million "refugees" from the
North of Vietnam to the South. These folks caused such disruption in the fragile agricultural
economy of the South that their arrival ultimately drove the orginal residents to banditry in
order that they might survive. These displaced bandits became what was later known as the
Viet Cong. Hence, the CIA created the conditions necessary for a full scale war in
Vietnam.
On coming to office, Kennedy, a brilliant and studious man, came soon to understand the
perfidy of the CIA One of first his acts on realizing this was to fire CIA director Allen
Dulles. Soon thereafter, he issued one the most important, and unknown, documents of US
history, NSAM 263. Issued in October of 1963, this document called for 1,000 US military
personnel to come home from Vietnam by that Christmas. The remainder were to be out of
Vietnam by the end of 1965. Had John Kennedy lived, what Americans know as the war in Vietnam
would never have happened.
Prouty demonstrates herein that the powers that be ultimately made the decision that they
could not allow Kennedy to live. He makes it clear that assassination researches who make a
career of examining the details of the government's false cover story truly miss the point.
What matters is not how the President was killed, but why. And the answer to that question is
that the assassination was a coup d'etat, transferring control of the government of the
United States to a power elite, which has been in control ever since. Hence, we have the
strange silence of every succeeding President on the issue of the cover up of the Kennedy
assassination.
The book is well written and extraordinarily important. He would understand our nation and
how it came to be in the condition that now obtains would be well advised to read carefully
this terribly important book. God bless.
This book is written by someone who was sitting in the middle of Eisenhower's feared
military-industrial complex, instead of an outside researcher. Col Prouty lived what he tells
us for several years. He saw the Korean & the Vietnam War buildup from the inside; he
watched as the Bay of Pigs went down and No, it was not JFK's fault.
I was most impressed that Col Prouty is the actual person depicted as "Mr. X" and
portrayed by Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's JFK.
If only half of what he tells us is the truth, then we need to demand another look at
JFK's murder.
Fascinating read, from a man inside the Military Complex
Overall, this was a fascinatiing read, and an awesome addition to my already humongous JFK
Assassination collection. My only points of contention: 1)The name of it (and I realize the
name needs to attract the reader) should have been The Military Complex / The Power Elite:
How it works and it's connection to the JFK Assassination. The first three quarters of this
book was all about the High Cabal and the Military complex. Incredibly detailed and
compelling reading, but I just could not wait for it to end so we could get to the JFK part.
But when it did...BAM! I could not put the book down. 2) This may be minor, but parts were
extremely repetitve. I stopped counting how many times he referred to the one million
Vietnemese who migrated to South Vietnam. I know he was trying to bang the point home, but it
got to a point where it was not needed. 3) Once he got to the assassination itself I truly
thought he would get into names...who made up this High Cabal or Power Elite that is more
powerful than the President and US Government. I understand this could be dangerous...but a
little hint would have been nice. 4) I thought he would get into more detail how the
Assassination was pulled off. He drops a lot of hints and possibilities, but never really
gives details to his personal thoughts. I cannot believe Mr. Prouty, after all his years
serving in the military in the sensitive positions he held, could not come up with some kind
of idea. Be that as it my, I truly believe this is as close the truth that we could ever get.
I think this give the Why and Who would benefit. But would love even more detail. Maybe
that's asking too much... Whether or not you are a JFK Assassination buff...this is truly an
amazing read.
An Admirble Attempt at Truth-telling by a Good Man
If you have come to this book looking for another lean, persuasive investigation of the
various conspiracies that could have led to the killing of JFK, you have come to the wrong
place. prouty's book reaches far wider than that narrow scope, exploring every square inch of
his vast, first-hand knowledge of the workings and consequences of the so-called Cold War
(though I don't see how the bloody loss of millions of lives during that time constitute a
war that was anything but blazing hot).
Prouty, a former Air Force colonel and CIA insider, manages to observe his life's work
from an objective standpoint that raises countless probing and often hair-raising questions
and warnings. Reaching back to the origins of the cold war and its effects on the policy and
history that would soon be made, Prouty paints an expansive, thorough and detailed account
not only of the JFK assassination, but of the entire political and industrial framework
festering in the 20 years leading up to that moment that allowed such a tragedy to take
place.
Contrary to most other books that deal --either obliquely or directly -- with JFK's
murder, prouty's endures with a relevance that has as much to say about our own time as it
does about Kennedy's. He foresees all the problems of a tyrannically powerful CIA that
functions as the President's puppet master. "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of
today are CIA students of yesterday," Prouty asserts in what amounts to an astonishing
revelation when one considers that, among others, Osama Bin Laden is one of those "CIA
students of yesterday." But it isn't only terrorists: it is the people we put in place as
American puppets around the world. Take Hamad Karzai, for example, former CIA agent and
millionaire now serving as President of Afghanistan.
The intimate and omnipotent mingling of money, military, covert intelligence operations
and politics is precisely the network of power Prouty implicates not only in the crime that
was the JFK murder, but the crime of so many brutal wars and coups performed by the CIA
throughout the world to this very day. We are under the tyranny of an intelligence elite, an
elite that happens to have the most powerful military and political machines on the planet at
its service.
As prouty shows, Truman regretted his approval of the formation of the CIA toward the end
of his presidency. Eisenhower tried to curb its powers but failed miserably, and when Kennedy
fired Allen Dulles -- CIA chief at the time -- and not only threatened but actually worked to
break the CIA "into a thousand pieces," he was killed. If that strieks you as an irrational
logical leap, you need to read Prouty's book.
It is admirable that he undertook the writing of the book himself, rather than resorting
to the services of some professional writer as so many politicians and military officials do
for their memoirs and other books. Consequently, Prouty's book suffers a bit from a lack of
the kind of polish it might have had. He struggles to organize his vast knowledge into the
kind of coherant narrative he envisions and promises to no avail throughout. The reader has
to work a little harder here to put the many pieces together that prouty lays out.
Nonetheless, Prouty's book reads like a desperate, angry and even frantic attempt at
telling the truth by a man whose writing voice belies a remarkable warmth and sincerity. He
knows so much and is so appalled at the hypocrisy he witnessed throughout his career --
hypocrisy that turned to horror -- that his book reads like the result of a minor god angrily
shaking his fists and roaring in a locked room. His background, littered with merits and
accolades, backs up every claim he makes here.
Prouty's book is entirely based on first-hand knowledge and expertise he gleaned over the
course of a distinguished career: the precarious security arrangements in Dallas that day,
Kennedy's advocacy of a US note that would compete with the federal note, his vow to remove
all troops from Vietnam by 1965 and how this threatened the money-making machine that was the
Vietnam "conflict," the utter astonishment in Washington at Kennedy's victory over Nixon, a
man for whom various war and intelligence initiatives had already been drawn up for him to
sign off on at the start of his presidency -- before he was even elected!
From its first hour, Kennedy's thousand-day presidency threatened so many established
powers, so many benefactors of the military industrial complex, that there was no way it
could have ended up otherwise. Even Robert McNamara, a great admirer of the president and
godfather to one of Bobby Kennedy's kids, understood that a helicopter-augmented war like
Vietnam would "churn out big dollars," that the war itself was capable of creating the $500
billion in military-industrial profits it eventually raised. Any former Ford executive
understands the profits inherent in the collusion between military and industry.
As Prouty reports, quoting the controversial novel "Report From iron Mountain," "The war
system is indispensable to the stable political structure . . . war provides the sense of
external necessity without which no government can long remain in power." This is precisely
the bleak "necessity" that Kennedy eventually grew to rebuke, and it was that rebuke that put
the nails in his coffin long before his trip to Dallas.
By A customer on June 15, 1996
Very, very good.
I am a fan of Col Prouty, ever since I read The Secret Team.
Oliver Stone is in excellent company, because both of these men aren't afraid to tell the
truth.
It is exactly the lack of truth that is killing the
United States.
Those who attack this book, and Stone, with the usual ignorant hysterics, are part of the
cancer that is destroying the very innards of the last, great democracy on earth.
JFK's assasination was just a symptom of disease that is ravageing us today. This book
supports this point.
By the way, if you believe the results of the Warren Commmission, (the House Select Comm.
on Assasinations didn't, in 1976-78),then you are part of the problem.
This book gives an excellent pre-text to the take-over plans of the war-industy
complex,starting after World War II. Prouty clearly states how the US Navy took part in the
destabilization of Viet Nam by assisting in exporting tribes to the south. The resulting mess
fell into Kennedy's hands.
You can understand why the fascists would have to dispatch a man like Kennedy, because he
tried to do what was right. He was too charismatic, and he was correct. He could move too get
emotionally involved, and then to act. This was viewed to be a dangerous thing.
Kennedy's Presidential Memorandum #263 was the spark the could ignite a conflagration,
pulling the armed forces out of Viet Nam. This correct moral action would lead to other
positive events, such as the deconstruction of the war machine at home. If this course was
allowed to be taken. It didn't , of course.
The Military Right Wing and Ultra Hawks of the US had to liquidate Kennedy. Then, later,
Bobby, Malcom X, King... and I am sure that it was They were all done in by the same smoking
gun. They couldn't stand in the light of truth, like a vampire can stand the light of the
sun.
The prolem is still rampant today, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Read this book before revisionist history forces it from the shelves. Keep it alive, talk
about it. You'll find that you will defend it when you see the context that is carefully
presented by Prouty.
Also, think about how (now) Sen. Arlen Specter told us how the "magic" bullet is proof of
the single assasin theory. Then think about how he told us that this same bullet dediced to
wait in the air 1.6 seconds before striking Gov. Connally, and then move on to kill President
Kennedy, and still later was recovered with absolutely no loss of mass. Think, then reject
the fantasy tale outright.Specter was a liar, then as he is today, and the Warren
Commisssion's finding are pathetically false.
You should then read this book. It's not fantasy.
The cancer grows as you read this, but it is not too late... I think. If enough people get
informed, and then act according to their conscience, they can then eradicate the cancer.
There are not enough liar/fascists to stop a revolution of the truth. Today, they are
afraid, and for good reason.
Thank you.
MBF
By A customer on December 24, 1998
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance
These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI,
(Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good
"original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for
him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy
Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson,
MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the
rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to
his country, the United States of America.
Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate
on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership
capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief
of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military
Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council
Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he
does, in fact, speak the truth.
I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the
Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:
Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have
failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many
covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In
such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian
personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended
for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these
activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the
work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times
included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of
these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate
choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.
At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is
extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the
fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of
the United States. If one who is in such a position:
1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;
2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" --
i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;
3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F.
Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup
d'etat";
Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the
wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite
their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.
I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to
detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.
In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."
Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This
book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily
and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold
War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and
why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency.
L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one
incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India
Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says
that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.
Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by
corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide
is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to
this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was
poisoned (he had spies everywhere?).
"Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday"
(p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash
awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are
trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence"
ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks,
and major industries.
Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to
Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The
destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962
Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor?
Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry.
The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal
migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought
Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how
43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of
machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.
L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert
Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering
(p.187).
Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the
Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries
to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to
support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page
240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.
On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to
escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers
those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty
presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that
JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed
the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things
done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report
is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of
the Warren Report to his dying day.
The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are
masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people
(p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air
flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.
By A customer on December 24, 1998
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance
These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI,
(Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good
"original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for
him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy
Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson,
MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the
rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to
his country, the United States of America.
Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate
on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership
capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief
of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military
Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council
Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he
does, in fact, speak the truth.
I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the
Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:
Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have
failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many
covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In
such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian
personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended
for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these
activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the
work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times
included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of
these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate
choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.
At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is
extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the
fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of
the United States. If one who is in such a position:
1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;
2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" --
i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;
3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F.
Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup
d'etat";
Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the
wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite
their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.
I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to
detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.
In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."
Constitutional Implications of the JFK Assassination
A recent poll taken by CNBC and a "news-eum" shows that the assassination of John F.
Kennedy was the 6th most important event of the twentieth century. How or why those polled
justify this choice is not clear. But anyone familiar with American history, American
culture, and the myths and assumptions most Americans carry as a foundation of their beliefs
-- can deduce the relevance of November 22, 1963 and its implications.
Every school kid is taught that we live in a country where there is no need for coup
d'etat. We don't assassinate our leaders; we retire them at the voting booth. In this,
derives the faith we have in all our other institutions, and especially, the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights. From the dawn of our individual consciousness, we are made to believe and
assume that we are "safe," that we can think and say and do as we please, so long as we don't
tread on the rights of others. And every school kid learns by rote the Preamble to the
Constitution -- "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense . . secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . . ."
So for thirty-five years, most of us have been living in some form of illusion and denial.
We were told and made to accept the story that the President of the United States was killed
by a single, crazed person -- a relative nobody, an insect. The Warren Commission Report
assured a majority of people over some part of those 35 years that our institutions are safe.
It attempted to assure us, among other things, that our public officials continue to be
honest; that our judges continue to value and protect Justice and Truth above everything
else; that our policemen and local officials can be relied upon to protect us; and that the
government, when it tells us to send the flower of our youth to war, does so for good reason.
In a way, the Report was a means of continuing the myths that we all believe, especially,
that "We the People" are the ultimate source of authority and power in our government.
Unfortunately for the authors of the 26-volume Report -- but fortunately for the rest of
us -- it has lost its credibility. That credibility began to erode almost as soon as the
Report was published, as Jim Garrison, District Attorney of New Orleans parish, resurrected
his investigation into the activities and actors of the building at Lafayette and Camp
streets. Almost from the beginning, the work of Garrison and his staff was hampered by the
seemingly unexplainable efforts of the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency. Since that
time, we have been slowly awakened to the possible involvement of as many as three elected
presidents in the Warren Commission coverup, and there are echoes of something worse,
something more sinister.
We owe this awakening in part to the efforts of Garrison, and to the contribution of the
man who anonymously assisted him in that investigation of the late 60's. Col. L. Fletcher
Prouty, the "Mr. X" of Oliver Stone's "JFK," retired from the CIA not more than a year after
the assassination. New facts in the assassination have slowly accumulated, partly due to the
efforts of Prouty, Garrison, an emerging army of quiet and persistent historical researchers,
investigative journalists, and -- yes -- even elected officials.
Now there are several variations on the conspiracy theme, which polls show is now accepted
or suspected by as much as 78 percent of the American population. Some believed that Castro
was the source of the plot to kill JFK. Others accepted the most reasonable theory that
organized crime, namely Carlos Marcello, was the dark force behind the assassination. How
comforting. We can now change the TV channel to "The Brady Bunch" -- we are still safe as
long as the identity of the bogeyman that robbed us of a President and half a century's
history doesn't challenge our basic beliefs in the institutions of government. And of course,
the institutions of the powerful are also safe from a skeptical and inquiring public.
Other theories are more troubling, and as Prouty tells us apologetically, advocates of
these theories perennially suffer the labels of "conspiracy nut" and "paranoid." But Prouty
was the post-war pilot who shuttled dignitaries to the major conferences of World War II and
facilitated the "rescue" of Nazi intelligence officers from their potential Soviet captors.
He was on Okinawa when the thousands of tons of war materiel suddenly deemed unnecessary for
an invasion of Japan were unexplainably shipped to Haiphong Harbor for the VietMinh. He was
privy to the CIA's covert operations from that point forward which slowly enmired America in
a war without strategic objectives -- the war in Vietnam. He was in the midst of CIA staff
who planned the covert initiatives against Castro, notably Operation Mongoose and the Bay of
Pigs. He presents detailed, plausible explanations of the reasons why these efforts failed.
This provides a basis for a most incredible argument that a "High Cabal" of individuals and
agencies -- above politics, even above government itself -- set in motion the decisions,
events, and coordination that enabled the murder of a President.
Prouty was Oliver Stone's closest consultant in forging the epic movie "JFK." The
underlying theory of the movie has been labeled "Conspiracy-a-Go-Go," the essence of a plot
masterminded by a "High Cabal." The features of such a plot are merely hinted by the movie.
Viewers may take away from the film an awakened sense of suspicion mixed with disbelief, and
this does not detract from the film as good cinematic art. But Prouty's book offers some
solid history and autobiography. It doesn't digest as impassioned rhetoric or the rantings of
an extremist paranoid. It comes off as the ruminations and reflections of a witness who has
both feet on solid ground.
The author consistently reminds us that an explanation of Kennedy's murder must be
grounded in economic reasoning. "Who stood to benefit?" "Why?" He tells us that he doesn't
want to concern himself with the identities of the contract assassins themselves, and indeed
he informs us that it is in the nature of this underworld thick with professional "mechanics"
that their identities may never be entirely known. Instead, he provides us a review of
history and foreign policy during the initial and most frightening stages of the Cold War,
and he reminds us that individuals are at the core of power where decisions of enormous scope
are made frequently without either the participation or the knowledge of the public. So
rather than point the finger explicitly at conspirators -- whose identities may be suggested
or mentioned as part of the book's historical message -- he leaves it to the reader's
judgment.
I cannot fault the book for its failure to present solutions. Ted Kazynski, in his
"Manifesto," levels accusations against the same dark, if not anonymous forces, and most
people will overlook the scribblings of someone diagnosed as criminally insane. But we cannot
ignore any longer the existence of a "power elite" and the imperatives of large-scale global
organization which support its existence. If we wish to live in society and partake of the
benefits of a civilization thousands of years in the making, we have to accept these
distortions to the democratic myths that saturate our consciousness and perceptions. Offering
a practical prescription for controlling those forces was never Prouty's objective in writing
this book. More aptly, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy"
is a profound wake-up call.
Prescriptions do not come easily. Those interested in what should prove to be a long and
protracted debate should read Gerry Spence's "Give Me Liberty." But one cannot address the
problem unless he or she is aware of it. To this end, Prouty's book provides sharp historical
focus.
Col. Prouty's most informative book exposes the vicious, greedy, and super-anonymous hand
of the "High Cabal" as none other has dared attempt. It clearly demonstrates the bizarre and
disgusting chain of events (created by the OSS and CIA) that began before the end of WWII;
events that led to President Eisenhower's unprecedented farewell address (and warning) to the
nation. These events also led to the creation of President John F. Kennedy's National
Security Action Memorandum #263, which called for de-escalation of the Vietnam War and
withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam; the memorandum that ultimately led to his death.
This work exposes the planned genocide of millions of innocent, non-combatant Southeast
Asian civilians, under the guise of such noble sounding terms as "pacification." Readers
learn that none of these attacks on the peace-loving Southeast Asians were undertaken to
protect any nation or preserve any ideology. Rather, they were thrust upon the Southeast
Asians to further feed the exceedingly bulging pockets of greedy international bankers and
the insidious military-industrial complex. These events also served to further perpetuate the
High Cabal's iron-fisted, though ultra-secret, control over American government, among
others, and the world economy. Vietnam is but one homeland that the High Cabal has decimated
to serve its own purposes. There have indeed been many others throughout history. The
question is: who's next? Perhaps us? Every American should read this vitally important book.
And, think about it...
Hats off to Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. A truly great American! I proudly salute you,
Sir.
I want those readers who have not read this book to read my opinions below.
First, this is a great book simply because Prouty has provided more inside ammunition for
researchers to mine the depths of our secret government. This is the government of men who
controlled the secret programs of assassination, the secret slush funds of
counterintelligence, the operatives who dilligently carried out their secret orders,their
programs of stealth, quasi-law breaking, and other publically inaccessible information.
Prouty's book quite correctly points the finger at Dulles, Lansdale, and others in CIA, who
were paranoid about communism and Castro. They viewed Kennedy as a traitor and he stood in
the way of the war machine they were operating, both overtly, but especially covertly. The
termination of raids to Cuba, the failure of follow-up air support at the Bay of Pigs, the
promise not to invade Cuba after the Cuban missile crisis, were all blamed on Kennedy. The
firing of Dulles, Cabell, and Bissell contributed to the intelligence community wanting JFK
removed from command. It is astonishing that so few have commented on the contrast between
now and then: in 1963 we were fed lies depicting Oswald as a crazed nut, a loner, and
defector. These days we have mountains of evidence he was much more than these pictures of
him. He associated with Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, anti-castro cubans, and others. He returned
to the US without a hitch, but in those days a defector would have been hounded and closely
watched. If this were true,then why wasn't the FBI catching all his associations and illegal
activities? Prouty has produced the superstructure of the conspiracy by showing the history,
and context of the cold war and the CIA
If one can view a supposed loser like Oswald pulling off this assassination as being
totally ridiculous, then one can entertain other possibilities. Why was Lyndon Johnson
reversing NSAMs so quickly concerning Vietnam? Why did Johnson appoint Warren, Dulles, Ford,
et al? Why wasn't the Dulles appointment perceived as a conflict of interest? Here is the
fired subordinate investigating the dead boss! Dulles definitely kept information from the
panel, especially about the assassination plots being orchestrated by the CIA, with the Mafia
as the gunmen. In this connection, another book of importance should be read and that is by
Peter Dale Scott: Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. It is a difficult book because he
describes a quasi government,over-and-above government institutions, which controlled the
plot and the outcome. This corresponds to some observations about Prouty's book, which fails
to name names. But that isn't quite correct. Prouty does name many persons who were in
command positions and had the power to orchestrate the assassination.Two prominent persons
were Dulles and Lansdale. Any clever and alert reader who watched Stone's movie JFK will see
a very short (about 2 second)sequence in the movie where General X is making the call to the
network to carry out the plot and kill JFK. On his desk is a nameplate which clearly says
"Lansdale".
The Prouty book establishes that Kennedy "was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he
confirmed that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of
detente.He asked congress to cut the defense budget.Major programs were being phased out. As
a result, pressure from several fronts began to to build against the young President.The
pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space
program, and in the enormous potential cost-and profit-of the Vietnam War."
It is very ironic that his enemies in government brought about detente with the Soviet
Union. The notion that Oswald was a lone killer is preposterous and if it were true, why
would the full truth be kept from us so long after the collapse of communism? This was the
facile justification for locking up the evidence until 2025: that our outrage against a
communist conspiracy would demand a war against the communists. The real truth was to control
the information to the American public, so as to cover their tracks, and establish a legend
to the JFK killing.
Everyone should read this book. I heartily recommend this book to anyone seeking insight
into the question about insiders being involved in the killing.
Prouty gives us the point of view of both an ace historian and an insider taking us from
the origins of the cold war up through the assassination of President Kennedy, and then on up
through tomorrow night's evening news. It's haunting how the power elite's patterns of
military strategies and propaganda tactics of that era correlate with many of today's current
events. Just the other day somebody on TV was screaming, "Why wasn't there an objective in
Desert Fox?!" while at the same time I'm reading the answer in Prouty's book, yet the book
was written 6 or 7 years ago.
This isn't a book only on the Kennedy assassination, but Kennedy's bold decisions which
led to his death and the forces behind it all. He explains clearly the post-H-bomb military
strategy of aiding both sides of the fence in Vietnam to win the REAL war - big business. We
get an inside look at the Dulles brothers and their direct line to the "High Cabal" which
overrules even the White House.
I once heard Col. Prouty say in an interview that he's never read a page of the Warren
Commission's 26 volumes of hearings on the assassination. He said he didn't have to because
he knew who did it. I thought that was a bit odd, but after reading this book I understand
what he means. Prouty had worked with these guys! These are the same forces that overthrew
the Philipines, Greece, Iran, Bulgaria and Guatemala (to name just a few).
Out of all the books written about the Kennedy assassination this is easily one of the
best. Check out his website!
By A customer on October 22, 1999
A disturbing and enlightening insight into the Cold War
This book uncovers the many reasons for the Korean & Vietnam conflicts. It clearly
implicates the OSS/CIA during the end of World War II in their involvement in providing
supplies for the Koreans and then later for the Vietminh. Colonel Prouty indicates how the
CIA are quite often able to live in a secret world while manipulating other federal agencies
to their desired ends. When Kennedy took office in 1960 he inherited $6.5 billion in surplus
from the previous administration. When he planned not to include a major defense manufacturer
to build the TFX and gave that bid to General Dynamics the CIA and their constituents were
vey upset. Prouty points out that Kennedy never had any intention in building great offensive
systems for war. Kennedy wanted to create a united peace in the world through his reelection
by implementing domestic policies that would focus on the problems "at home." He also desired
better foreign relations with the Soviet Union. Kennedy planned to bring 1000 troops home
from Viet Nam by Christmas of 1963. McNamara's report on the Indonesian situation indicated
that all military units in Vietnam could be home by Kennedy's due date of 1965. But major
corporations having an investment in the manufacturing of war machines do not thrive during
peacetime. This was a critical area for Kennedy because of his change in the national policy.
Prouty shows that the President's shift prompted many businessmen to seriously think about
Kennedy's position as president. This book answers the whys of the cold war period as well as
the assassination motives. Prouty's book points out the wasted time in focusing on a "patsy"
as the lone assasin of JFK. In all probability Oswald was a soldier carrying out commands
from his superior officers not fully knowing the extent of the damage. L. Fletcher Prouty
wrote this history from his personal experiences with covert operations and his involvement
with government agencies. After reading this book the author leaves one feeling disturbed,
yet enlightened by the rich insight he has provided. I am grateful to Colonel Prouty for his
willingness to share his knowledge so that many may have an alternative view and perhaps a
better understanding regarding the Cold War era.
Prouty was well postioned to tell his story as seen from inside the intelligence
community. Unknown to most people Kennedy challenged the hegemony of the privately owned and
controlled Federal Reserve. In the summer of 1963 Kennedy signed an executive order to create
4 billion dollars in United States Notes, in direct competion to Federal Reserve Notes. Why?
The United States Notes were based on the government silver stores and their creation did not
create interest payements to the world bankers and owners of the Fed. Bills in denominations
of $2, $5, $10, and $20's were authorized and the $2's and $5's were printed and in
circulation. The $10's and $20 were being printed when Kenndy was killed. In Johnsons first
month in office the US Notes were recalled from circulation. Go to any good coin shop and ask
to buy a 1963 US Note. See it for yourself! The one gem in Prouty's book that ties Kennedy to
this issue is a few sentences where he discusses Kennedy sending Robert McNamara to meet with
the Governors of the Federal Reserve to let them know that there are going to be big changes
in the nations money system. There is very little information out there about Kennedy and
money and Prouty clearly knew there was a connection. Why is the topic of Kennedy and the
money he created so obscure and unknown? The only other president in the history of the
country to create US Notes directly from the authority of the US Government was Lincoln with
his greenbacks during the civil war. The only two presidents to buck the money powers were
both assasinated in office. I think Prouty shows a possible origin of one of the smoking
guns.
By A customer on January 4, 1998
The key to the mystery of the crime of the century.
As a United States Marine in the Vietnam war, I never challenged my country's intentions
to stem the tide against communist aggression throughout the world. After my extended tour of
duty in that war zone, I came home to ponder how we became involved in such a protracted war
that divided the country (USA) so. It all points back to the tradgic event on 22 November
1963. With the death of our beloved President Kennedy, the powers to be had free reign to
curtail the planned withdrawl of the small amount of troops in that zone. Only 16,000 at that
time. This book is an excellent reference to how real events were managed to create so much
grief for the people of South Vietnam and the United States. As a former Marine who left
enough of his friends to pay the ultimate sacrifice, I highly recommend Colonel Prouty's fine
book. "Those of us who made it have an obligation to find the goodness in man and make this
world a better place in which to live." Long live the memory of JFK.
America has Waited a Long Time to Hear the Truth...
Finally, those involved are getting old enough not to place concern about their own
welfare above truth anymore.
This book provides so many connections, such a depth of behind the scenes knowledge and
inner workings of the specific programs operating at the time, you can't help but be bowled
over.
***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a
"misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the
subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you
towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner.
It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that
showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy
Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has
casted doubt on our government ever since.
This "High Cabal" as Churchill called them obviously doesn't start with the CIA, or the
Federal Reserve. It predates Christianity, but it's quite simple. There are bums who seek
handouts and never try to rise, and there are bums who gain a position over others but still
yearn for that same handout, taking it by force, by skimming, whatever is necessary to defeat
justice, honor and civility. These are not great men and they will not be remembered like an
Edison or a Ford. They are the most creative parasites on the planet, and the most deeply
engrained.
Currency control has changed EIGHT times since America's inception. The most vocal fighter
against irrational banking was Andrew Jackson; not Kennedy or Lincoln (google "Jackson Bank
Veto"). He fought and defeated in his time what has morphed into the Federal Reserve Bank.
Before the Civil War, such bankers were buying politicians, planting press stories, steering
elections, stealing freedoms, killing people--anything to assure a fascist cushion between
themselves and existence.
Do we ever hear anything bad about the Federal Reserve? In Jackson's time, they were
entrenched 16 years deep and it was difficult to rout them out then. They did try to kill
him. Now they are ninety years deep. They have owned many Presidents, they control the
Justice and State Departments, and the CIA secretly furthers their agenda.
Nothing happens at the Assassination Level without their approval. In today's world,
America is struggling in recession (bankruptcy) mostly due to the $360 Billion we now pay to
the Fed for their generous "Debt-Money" System, and that is an exponentially increasing
burden. EVERY dollar in our country has interest being paid on it as if it were borrowed! Due
to this, bankruptcy for America is a mathematical certainty. (Imagine if you had to pay
interest not just on every dollar you owed, but on every dollar you made! America IS!)
With changes in the laws, soon none of us will be permitted to walk away from our debts
and start over--as if our hard economic times is our own personal fault.
We are all about to become debt slaves, as they intend. If you want to have a chance at
recovery, if you want your kids to have a chance at a decent future, join me and I'll give
you the Moral Armor neccessary to beat down these parasites and restore America to what it
was meant to be. They CAN be defeated, but not without YOUR empowerment. If you can't stand
up or are afraid to, I'll show you how. Invest in yourself right now and let's save this
ship!
Hard to believe for various reasons. First, other reviewers have commented on the "logic"
of the author's arguments. There are, however, numerous fallacies in the book. Lots of, "X
happened, and then Y happened, THEREFORE..." but the conclusions are never proven and don't
follow logically from the premises. Second, the author doesn't seem to notice some of the
absurdities in his thesis when applied to November of 1963. For example, we're told that an
international elite working above the leaders elected to the highest offices of government
have created and controlled world wide war efforts, power transfers, government overthrows,
and economic and monetary conditions among other things, since the end of WWII.
They must be pretty well organized, financed and intelligent to do so. Yet, they were
unable to ensure the election of Nixon in the closest election in history up to that
point?
Seems odd to be able to start wars but not rig an election that was lost by .02 percent.
And, if that isn't a good enough example, let's try another one.
The author gives us several photos in the book of the Dallas "Police" who transported a
band of vagabonds on the day JFK was killed and points out the facts that their uniforms
aren't standard DPD issue, their uniforms don't match, and their caps and weapons are not
standard.
The obvious allusion is that they weren't real policemen and were somehow a part of or
hired by this power elite who operated to kill on that day. Yet, wouldn't a "High Cabal"
capable of all I mentioned above, have made sure to procure authentic police uniforms, caps,
badges and weapons for such an important day, leaving nothing to chance, and preparing for
every contingency? It seems like a very sloppy oversight by a group with such limitless
powers and ability.
These are just two examples of many where common sense seems to trump the passionate
arguments of the author. That being said, there is some interesting information in the book
on the inner workings of the CIA and government especially during the Vietnam War. If you are
going to read it, just be on the lookout for the faulty logic and use common, critical
thinking skills to help sort possibility from probability.
In "JFK", Fletcher Prouty shares numerous fascinating observations garnered from his
position as a mid-grade officer in what I call the "Conglomerate of Covert Cold Warriors"
(OSS/CIA/Military Intelligence/Special Operations/etc) from the 1940s until the early 1960s.
Some of the conclusions he draws, however, are completely unsubstantiated and require a real
stretch of the imagination.
Chief among these is the existence of some sort of secret "high cabal" of bankers and
industrialists (but not the Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations,
Freemasons, Trilateral Commision, Pentaverate,or any other previously speculated secret
organization) which has been manipulating the governments of the world into conflicts large
and small for at least the last hundred years for the purpose of generating profits on the
sale and/or financing of war materials.
Prouty further supposes that the CIA and KGB were the two principal levers with which this
supposed cabal have exerted their influence on the world in the post-WWII era.
Prouty also suggests that the Korean and Vietnam Wars were prearranged prior to the close
of World War II, and that everything that happened in Vietnam from '45 on was part of a
master plan by the OSS/CIA to set the table for a protracted large-scale US engagement in a
later decade. Kennedy's intent to deviate from this carefully and painstaking constructed
plan for Vietnam supposedly was the instigation for the high cabal to orchestrate his
murder.
While Prouty brings to light many interesting connections between the "Conglomerate" and
world events, the need to attribute credit/blame for everything to some "invisible elite"
group of power brokers who pull the strings of the CIA is difficult to accept. It seems to me
that the fact that the CIA was a very insular group, created and led by a small cadre of
extremely ambitious ideologues who operated with a nearly unlimited budget and almost no
accountability means they were likely responsible on their own for most things that Prouty
blames on "the cabal."
At times Prouty contradicts himself, suggesting on one hand that various apparent CIA
miscalculations that drag us farther into the Vietnam war were actually intentional, while
later claiming that the CIA were surprised when the same actions did not yield any strategic
gains.
One last criticism I have is that Prouty often repeats himself. Certain themes are
addressed over and over, with little or no additional detail brought to the table. Some
passages were so similar to ones in previous chapters I wondered if my kindle was
malfunctioning and moving me back to pages I'd already read. I blame this more on the editors
than Prouty; they should have restructured his ideas more logically and could have cut 50-100
pages from this book without removing any value.
If you can look past the cabal angle and sloppy organization, there are some interesting
ideas presented. Prouty makes a strong case that JFK intended to take the country in a
direction in Vietnam that was counter to the aims of the "Conglomerate" and that certain
individuals were conspicuously well prepared to reverse that policy in the immediate
aftermath of the assassination. He also fairly criticizes the failure of the "Pentagon
Papers" to put the the dramatic shift in Vietnam policy that occurred in late November, 1963,
in the context of of a violent change in the presidency. His theory that the CIA-sponsored
relocation of ~1,000,0000 Tonkinese Vietnamese from the North to the Mekong Delta in the
South spawned the Viet Cong is compelling, whether or not you buy his supposition that it was
a calculated result.
The fact that Prouty is the mysterious "Mr X" from Garrisons book "On the Trail of the
Assassins" and Stone's movie "JFK" is reason enough for any assassination buff to read this
book despite the shortcomings. That there are other interesting and salient nuggets burried
in the muck of the "high cabal" theme is a bonus.
A customer on September 5, 1999
Prouty long on entrigue - short on facts.
I once had the opportunity to ask Col. Prouty (via e-mail) if he had retained any of the
orders he states he received, or could produce another officer who shared his perspective on
events surrounding the assassination of JFK. Instead of answers, what I got in return was a
geriatric tirade and a sermon on respect for the men who have served this great nation. His
thesis on the Bay of Pigs, given documentation now available (_Bay of Pigs Declassified_,
1998 National Security Archive, [...]) demonstrates that, where facts are concerned, Prouty
is victim to his own perspective. Prouty reports that JFK was advised through CIA channels
that Castro's air force had to be disabled prior to the April 17, Bay of Pigs attack, by
Cuban exiles/CIA forces. Prouty states that JFK gave the green light for the initial April 15
attack, which decommissioned all but three of Castro's T-33 aircraft, and conveys that when
JFK was advised on April 16 that three planes remained, he authorized their destruction with
a second wave attack. Col. Prouty contends that McGeorge Bundy made a secure call to General
Charles Cabell (brother of the Dallas mayor when JFK was assassinated, Earle Cabell) giving
the president's approval, but that Cabell delayed deployment of the exile air force at
Nicaragua. The Colonel contends that Cabell's delay in passing the order was the reason
Kennedy later had him relieved of duty, and that the Mayor of Dallas retaliated for his
brother's dismissal by participating in JFK's assassination.
Prouty makes the case that Cabell foiled any chances of success for the maritime operation
by delaying the order for the B-26 aircraft to return to Cuba and destroy three remaining
T-33s. But, Prouty is way off the mark on this one. Recently released documentation proves
JFK wanted deniabilty and did not authorize the second wave of air attacks. While a question
may remain as to whether the CIA adequately briefed Kennedy on the importance of the second
wave attacks by the Cuban exiles, there is little doubt that whomever or whatever caused
Prouty to print his version of the events will not contribute to Prouty's reputation for
accuracy when confidently stating things as fact.
In a realm where hard evidence is a must, Prouty tells interesting tales. If his accounts
of the events are to be believed, Col Prouty should furnish us military sources who agree
with the Colonel, or concede that historically he simply cannot prove his assertions.
What a sad mess of a book. It is really unfortunate that the people who were active adults
in 1963 are now approaching their dotage, 50 years later, and in addition, that few serious
publishers will touch the more controversial points of view with a 10-foot pole. As a result,
we get books like this, from someone who might actually know something, but who can't write
or edit a book into shape so that we can tell whether it makes any sense.
Prouty has several bugs in his bonnet:
There is a secret Cabal of elites who run the entire world and have for centuries.
Presidents and generals are puppets, mostly clueless as to what is really going on. (barely
credible.)
The fact that the earth is round, plus Malthus and Darwin, are the keys to the past 500
years of history, and the source of private property, colonialism, and pretty much all
evil. (not credible to me.)
Before WW2 had even ended, the US had already decided that its ally, the USSR, was
going to be its next enemy and that Germany would be its ally, and started acting on this
in the closing days of the war. The reason for this decision is that we, like all
countries, need perpetual war to maintain sovereignty. (semi-credible--I doubt that any of
this was conscious, if it happened at all.)
A decision was made in 1945 that after WW2, we would next fight in Korea and Vietnam,
and we sent weapons there for that purpose. (not credible to me. Yes, we may have sent
weapons there, but I really doubt that there was a master plan in place.)
By now you're probably wondering what any or all of this has to do with the assassination
of JFK. Well, that's the problem--this book is so all over the place that he spends
essentially the whole book on deep background stuff, and the actual explanation of what this
has to do with Kennedy is scattered throughout the book. He keeps bringing the story up to
1963 in every chapter, and then backtracking again and again. And again!
However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several
other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold
Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer.
Who knows?) He *did* found a thing called the Peace Corps. He did give a speech at an
American university that is called his Peace speech. Supposedly, he and Khrushchev were sort
of pen pals, and they had both stared into the nuclear abyss and decided to make love not
war.
Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence
a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master
plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes
stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me.
Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On
this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep
quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by
definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never
speak of it again.
I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The
defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that
he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job
or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!)
And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many
of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true
that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant
state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are
forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be
capable of taking them out.
I am fairly knowledgeable about the assassination scenarios, but I found this book rough
going, because it goes into a lot of political detail about the internal politics of Vietnam
as well as very detailed descriptions of Washington politics. Perhaps if you are a bit older
than me (I was 11 in 1963), or more knowledgeable about all the names and politics of that
time, it would all come together. But a good editor would have helped tremendously to make it
accessible to the general public.
In Oliver Stone's film "JFK" in the Mall Scene meeting between D.A. Jim Garrison (played
by Kevin Costner) and "Man X" (played by Donald Sutherland), a flashback scene presented a
nameplate from the desk of an Air Force military general speaking on the phone, and partialy
showing his name as Maj/Gen. E.G. (unknown)?
Who was Stone attempting to make reference to and cast aspersions upon Maj. General E.G.
Lansdale?
Does anybody know?? Will check back from time-to-time is see "IF" any comments are posted
to my inquiry. Thanks!
Contrary to popular belief today, Kennedy was a cold warrior. There is no evidence at all
that he was (in his second term, if he even got one) going to end the cold war, or pull out
of Vietnam. Michael Lind in his book 'Vietnam: The Necessary War' addresses this issue, and
points out that the record clearly shows otherwise.
Several of the people who claim that Kennedy told them he was going to pull out of Vietnam
revealed this information in the late 60's after the war had become traumatic for the
country. Robert McNamara (one of the original architects of the Vietnam War), who has
speculated for years that Kennedy would have withdrawn from Vietnam, admits that Kennedy
never told him he was going to pull out.
In an interview with Walter Cronkite a few months before he was assassinated Kennedy said
(about Vietnam): "I think it would be a mistake to withdraw." Oliver Stone (cleverly), only
shows bits and pieces of the interview at the beginning of JFK. Editing the interview to make
it look like Kennedy was going to withdraw. In fact, the day he was assassinated Kennedy gave
a speech endorsing our involvement in Vietnam. The claim that Kennedy was going to pull out
of Vietnam is speculation at best. Go to : [...]
This post details many of the myths surrounding JFK's policy stances, and shows that (by
today's standards) Kennedy (most likely) would have been a moderate Republican. There was no
motive (as Prouty claims) to kill Kennedy.
Also go to: [...]
For some more of Prouty's crackpot opinions.
Kennedy was a cold warrior: he was conspicuously absent (as a representative from
Massachusetts) when the House of Representatives voted to censure Joseph McCarthy (he even
praised McCarthy on several occasions). He ran against Nixon in 1960 on the missile gap (i.e.
we were behind the Soviets in the number of ICBM's). He said in his inaugural address:
"......Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price,
bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the
survival and the success of liberty." Doesn't sound to me like he was going to "bug out" of
Vietnam.
Also, check out: [...]
This further debunks the idea that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam.
"... One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited while the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then, Trump fell into the Military's arms. He had been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can get, which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can muster. ..."
You stated: The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency
campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one).
I differ. JFK was taken out by a combined US Naval Intel and CIA plot. The beneficiary was
the MIC. Eleven days later, LBJ reversed the executive order by JFK to end the US involvement
in Nam. For 11 more years the Military got what it wanted -- war.
LBJ got what he wanted -- the Presidency. The Cuban-Americans got what they wanted -- revenge
for failure at Bay of Pigs by Kennedy. The Mafia got what they wanted -- revenge for Bobby Kennedy.
One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited
while the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then, Trump fell into the Military's arms.
He had been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their
plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can get,
which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can muster.
The military/intelligence -- slash not dash -- coup was on September 11, 2001. Trump's
overt Junta is psyops. This is the "armed forces" rescuing us from "neocons" lead by
courageous slimebag Trump.
--
@Red Ryder | Oct 21, 2017 7:36:54 PM | 16
Dear RR. You forgot that JFK wanted to subject ISRAEL to the same IAEA regime that IRAN is
now subjected to. "Never forget".
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created
by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent
Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security
complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia
has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to
have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary
and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of
further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative
circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked
Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver
Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their
naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin
Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US
foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US
unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and
of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington
convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO
bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO
provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more
reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential
election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and
the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.
Wars eventually deeply affect on the nation
which launches them....
Notable quotes:
"... Stop thinking of this country as the sole superpower or the indispensable nation on Earth and start reimagining it as the great fracturer, the exceptional smasher, the indispensable fragmenter. Its wars of the twenty-first century are starting to come home big time -- home being not just this particular country (though that's true , too) but this planet. Though hardly alone , the U.S. is, for the moment, the most exceptional home-destroyer around and its president is now not just the commander-in-chief but the home-smasher-in-chief. ..."
"... Just this week, for instance, home smashing was in the headlines. After all, the Islamic State's "capital," the city of Raqqa, was " liberated ." We won! The U.S. and the forces it backed in Syria were finally victorious and the brutal Islamic State (a home-smashing movement that emerged from an American military prison in Iraq) was finally driven from that city ( almost !). And oh yes, according to witnesses , the former city of 300,000 lies abandoned with hardly a building left undamaged, unbroken, unsmashed. ..."
"... In the Greater Middle East and Africa, people by the tens of millions , including staggering numbers of children , have been uprooted and displaced, their homes destroyed, their cities and towns devastated, sending survivors fleeing across national borders as refugees in numbers that haven't been seen since a significant part of the planet was leveled in World War II. ..."
Stop thinking of this country as the sole superpower or the indispensable nation on
Earth and start reimagining it as the great fracturer, the exceptional smasher, the
indispensable fragmenter. Its wars of the twenty-first century are starting to come home big
time -- home being not just this particular country (though that's
true , too) but this planet. Though
hardly alone , the U.S. is, for the moment, the most exceptional home-destroyer around and
its president is now not just the commander-in-chief but the home-smasher-in-chief.
Just this week, for instance, home smashing was in the headlines. After all, the Islamic
State's "capital," the city of Raqqa, was " liberated
." We won! The U.S. and the forces it backed in Syria were finally victorious and the brutal
Islamic State (a home-smashing movement that emerged from an American military
prison in Iraq) was finally driven from that city (
almost !). And oh yes, according to witnesses , the former city of 300,000 lies
abandoned with hardly a building left undamaged, unbroken, unsmashed. Over these last
months, the American bombing campaign against Raqqa and the artillery support that went with it
reportedly killed
more than 1,000
civilians and turned significant parts of the city into
rubble -- and what that didn't do, ISIS bombs and other munitions did. (According to
estimates , they could take years to find and remove.) And Raqqa is just the
latest Middle Eastern city to be smashed
more or less to bits.
And since the splintering of the planet is the TomDispatch subject of the day, what
about the recent Austrian election, fought out and
won by right-wing "populists" on the basis of anti-refugee sentiments and Islamophobia?
Where exactly did such sentiments come from? You know perfectly well: from America's war on
terror and the much-vaunted " precision warfare " (smart bombs and the rest)
that continues to fracture a vast swath of the planet from Afghanistan to Libya and beyond.
In the Greater Middle East and Africa, people by the
tens of millions , including staggering numbers of children , have been uprooted and displaced,
their homes destroyed, their cities and towns devastated, sending survivors fleeing across
national borders as refugees in numbers that haven't been seen since a significant part of the
planet was leveled in World War II. In this way, America's 16-year-old war on terror has
been a genuine force for terror, and so for the kind of resentment and fear that's now helping
to crack open a recently united Europe (and in the United States helped elect well, you know
just who).
And that's only a small introduction to the largely unexplored American role in the
fracturing of this planet. Don't even get me started on our president and climate change!
As it happens, the fellow who brought the nature of this splintering home to me was
TomDispatch
regular John Feffer, who in
early 2015 began writing for this website what became his remarkable dystopian novel
Splinterlands
. In it, he imagined our shattered planet in 2050 so vividly that it's stayed with me ever
since -- and evidently with him, too, because today he considers just how quickly the
splintering process he imagined has been occurring not in his fictional version of our world,
but in the all-too-real one.
If we lose the state in a fourth great shattering, we will lose an important part of
ourselves as well: our very humanity.
In many respects the "state", USA that is, is already lost. What we had until the 1950s
was an ongoing mythology known as America; an agreed upon, ongoing concern known abroad for
its popular music, for Hollywood, for a thriving middle class, a healthy working-class and a
supplier of goods and services to the world, envy of all. Well, we shot a few holes in Myth
America!
First to go was the music: replaced by Bubblegum; downhill from there. Tin Pan Alley is
now dumpster heaven. The middle class now resides in Beijing with largess delivered to our
Dollar emporiums (not seen here since the Great Depression). Noticeable gaps in the starving
malls once housed record stores and book shops; remember them?
The final blow has landed on the movie houses across the land. Near empty, struggling.
Even in the depths of the 30′s, movie house were full. But then, "No myth:No nation".
No more.
"... This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism." ..."
"... And this is why we are where we are -- our government is infested by the likes of McCain, Lindsay Graham, and hundreds of others of their ilk. There is no milk of human kindness that flows in my veins when I look at these despicable creatures who have done so much harm to so many people and continue to exist, cancer and all, like Darth Cheney with his nuclear heart, while the innocents fall by the wayside from their evil. ..."
"... I can't find that citation at the moment, but I recall a report from US military experts that placed the accuracy of interceptor missiles at about 10% in real-world conditions. I vaguely recall that during the Gulf war, we had placed Patriot interceptors in Israel to protect the chosen from Saddam's Scud missiles, and apparently only a few of those decrepit scuds were successfully intercepted. I believe the lack of accuracy of these Patriot missiles was hushed up. ..."
Americans consequently do not know war except as something that happens elsewhere and to foreigners,
requiring only that the U.S. step in on occasion and bail things out, or screw things up depending
on one's point of view. This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from
Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with
denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He
describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century,
[abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked,
spurious nationalism."
McCain's completely fatuous account of recent world history befits a Navy pilot who was adept
at crashing his planes and almost sank his own aircraft carrier. He also made propaganda radio broadcasts
for the North Vietnamese after he was captured. The McCain globalist-American Exceptionalism narrative
is also, unfortunately, echoed by the media. The steady ingestion of lies and half-truths is why
the public puts up with unending demands for increased defense spending, accepting that the world
outside is a dangerous place that must be kept in line by force majeure . Yes, we are the
good guys.
But underlying the citizenry's willingness to accept that the military establishment should encircle
the globe with foreign bases to keep the world "safe" is the assumption that the 48 States are invulnerable,
isolated by broad oceans and friendly nations to the north and south. And protected from far distant
threats by technology, interceptor systems developed and maintained at enormous expense to intercept
and shoot down incoming ballistic missiles launched by enemies overseas.
This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can,
with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing
at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized
and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the
globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last
best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism."
And this is why we are where we are -- our government is infested by the likes of McCain,
Lindsay Graham, and hundreds of others of their ilk. There is no milk of human kindness that flows
in my veins when I look at these despicable creatures who have done so much harm to so many people
and continue to exist, cancer and all, like Darth Cheney with his nuclear heart, while the innocents
fall by the wayside from their evil.
I had wished him dead, but as a friend reminded me, it is better for him to live, suffering
from excruciating agony as cancer demolishes him one cell at a time, jabbing his brain every second
of every day -- to the brink of madness and just a step behind the precipice that would end his
life, living for decades more, tortured and despised.
Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last, I grapple
with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
-- Herman Melville
Even the federal government watchdog agencies have concluded that the missile interception
system seldom performs.
I can't find that citation at the moment, but I recall a report from US military experts
that placed the accuracy of interceptor missiles at about 10% in real-world conditions. I vaguely
recall that during the Gulf war, we had placed Patriot interceptors in Israel to protect the chosen
from Saddam's Scud missiles, and apparently only a few of those decrepit scuds were successfully
intercepted. I believe the lack of accuracy of these Patriot missiles was hushed up.
Meanwhile, the Russian S-300, S-400, and the soon-to-appear S-500 missile batteries have demonstrated
very impressive results. Now our "allies" are all scampering over to Moscow to acquire these instead
of our duds, following the utter failure of our $0.5 Trillion F-35 embarrassment.
It is high time for us to ask how we got here and who is responsible. I will give you three
guesses, and the first two don't count.
The military and deep state are so thoroughly intertwined with the USA's domestic economy now
that any attempt to rein in the military and/or the intelligence and law enforcement agencies that
constitute the USA's deep state will have immediate and politically unacceptable consequences.
There are costs of maintaining global empire and fighting eight wars simultaneously, even if
each is a low intensity conflict. That's how empires became bankrupt. Fighting wars at foreign
lands also erode civil liberties at home. And that effect might be more profound in the USA case
than many think. This is the effect not mentioned by the author.
Intelligence agencies were important players in all wars mentioned in the article and for
them those countries served as a platform for development of more sophisticated methods of
surveillance. And then chicken came home to roost. It was James Mattis experience with Iraq cell
phone call interception (where you generally can't understand the content of the message and has
only the "envelope" time of the call, duration and from and to parameters -- aka metadata) that
led to current "total surveillance" regime. Which is another very expensive operation with
somewhat questionable benefits. Which taken to the extreme when all connections are recorded at
Telco level and internet provider level suffer from the problem of "drinking from the fire hose".
To alleviate this problem, the direct access to major Webmail providers mailboxes was instituted
as Snowden demonstrated. In this case information is already organized and filtered by the
user.
But that means that security-conscious people just stopped using such accounts (not that
reasonable people used Facebook, Gmail or hotmail for important emails in any case) and search
engines which supposedly do not store history of your searches appeared on the market (keep our
fingers crossed ;-) . Of cause Amazon remain the best fired of CIA and NSA, but it also might
suffer from public understanding that being under the microscope of your purchases is not a very
good thing.
Notable quotes:
"... The Best and the Brightest ..."
"... Field Service Manual 3-24 ..."
"... For example, the USA has, if I remember correctly, some 13 carrier task forces, more than six times as many as any other country and twice as many as all other countries in the world combined. Yet rather than eliminating any of this grotesquely belligerent, budget busting overkill, there is pressure to increase the number. The reasons behind this irrationality are obvious. The home bases of each task force are thriving domestic mini-economies centered entirely around catering to the needs of its carrier task force. Suggesting the task force's elimination would be political suicide. ..."
"... Despite this dismal scholarship, Petraeus became a four-star General, partly due to marriage to the daughter of four-star Army General William Knowlton. General Petraeus was in charge of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and since he failed to learn from the Vietnam war, he failed in those conflicts because of myths of U.S. military invincibility. " ..."
"... The all volunteer Army is a good thing for the USA and humanity in the long term. It selects for the most violent amoral young American men and hopefully eliminates their genes from the gene pool before they can reproduce. At a minimum, it gets a lot of them out of the USA so that they commit their rapes, assaults, and other crimes somewhere else ..."
"... Just Sayin, you are absolutely right about the intertwining of the economy and the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex. My present home state of Texas is deeply embedded with the military and actually allots a significant amount of state revenue to be prepared to prevent the closure or shrinkage of any military installation. And otherwise "progressive" political figures cite the need for this as a given, nothing to discuss here ..."
"... I recall teaching political science at the time that Tricky Dick eliminated the draft, and while my students applauded I warned them that we'd come to regret this. It didn't take long. But MBlanc 46 is right, the draft isn't coming back. The powers that be do not want public protests about their wars and their "war machine." ..."
"... "military leaders recall US units never lost a battle" is a brilliantly evasive phrasing, lawyer-like in its cunning, perhaps even Jesuitical. Sly dog, Petraeus. ..."
"... On another note, Petreus studied Vietnam. Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression. Both led us into intractable quagmires. When will we ever learn to not put people who study failure into positions to lead to new failures? ..."
It was March 2003, the invasion of Iraq was underway, and Major General David Petraeus was
in command of the 101st Airborne Division heading for the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. Rick
Atkinson, Washington Post journalist and military historian, was accompanying him. Six
days into a lightning campaign, his division suddenly found itself stopped 30 miles southwest
of the city of Najaf by terrible weather, including a blinding dust storm, and the unexpectedly
"fanatical" attacks of Iraqi irregulars. At that moment, Atkinson reported
,
"[Petraeus] hooked his thumbs into his flak vest and adjusted the weight on his shoulders.
'Tell me how this ends,' he said. 'Eight years and eight divisions?' The allusion was to
advice supposedly given the White House in the early 1950s by a senior Army strategist upon
being asked what it would take to prop up French forces in South Vietnam. Petraeus's grin
suggested the comment was more droll quip than historical assertion."
Certainly, Petraeus knew his history when it came to American interventions in distant
lands. He had entered West Point just as the American war in Vietnam was beginning to wind down
and did his doctoral
dissertation at Princeton in 1987 on that conflict ("The American Military and the Lessons
of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era"). In
it, he wrote,
"Vietnam cost the military dearly. It left America's military leaders confounded,
dismayed, and discouraged. Even worse, it devastated the armed forces, robbing them of
dignity, money, and qualified people for a decade Vietnam was an extremely painful reminder
that when it comes to intervention, time and patience are not American virtues in abundant
supply."
So no wonder he was well acquainted with that 1954 exchange between President
Dwight D. Eisenhower and former Korean War commander General Matthew Ridgeway about the French
war in Vietnam. Perhaps, the "droll quip" aspect of his comment lay in his knowledge of just
how badly Ridgeway underestimated both the years and the troop numbers that the American
version of that war would eat up before it, too, ended in disaster and in a military as riddled
with protest and as close to collapse as was
imaginable for an American force of our era.
In his thesis, Petraeus called for the military high command to be granted a far freer hand
in whatever interventions the future held. In that sense, in 1987, he was already mainlining
into a twenty-first-century world in which the U.S. military continues to get everything it
wants ( and
more ) as it fights its wars without having to deal with either an obstreperous citizen
army or too many politicians trying to impose their will on its actions.
And by the way, though his Najaf comments have regularly been cited as if they were sui
generis , as the Ridgeway reference indicates, he was hardly the first American military
commander or political figure to appropriate Joan of Arc's question in Bernard Shaw's play
Saint Joan : "How long, oh Lord, how long?"
As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Halberstam recounted in his history of the
Vietnam years, The Best and the
Brightest , for instance, President Lyndon Johnson turned to Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs General Earle Wheeler in a June 1965 meeting and asked of the war in Vietnam, "What do
you think it will take to do the job?"
Wheeler's answer echoed Ridgeway's 11 years earlier, though in the escalatory mode that was
typical of Vietnam: "It all depends on what your definition of the job is, Mr. President. If
you intend to drive the last Vietcong out of Vietnam it will take seven hundred, eight hundred
thousand, a million men and about seven years. But if your definition of the job is to prevent
the Communists from taking over the country, that is, stopping them from doing it, then you're
talking about different gradations and different levels. So tell us what the job is and we'll
answer it."
A Generational Approach to America's Wars
Not so long after that moment on the outskirts of Najaf, the 101st Airborne made its way to
Baghdad just as the burning and looting began, and that
would only be the prologue to David Petraeus's war, to his version of eight years and eight
divisions. When an insurgency (actually several) broke out in Iraq, he would be dispatched to
the northern city of Mosul (now a pile
of rubble after its 2017 "liberation" from the Islamic State in Washington's third Iraq
War). There, he would first experiment with bringing back from the Vietnam experience the very
strategy the U.S. military had hoped to be rid of forever: "counterinsurgency," or the winning
of what in that war had regularly been called "hearts and minds." In 2004, Newsweek
was already hailing him on its cover with the dramatic question : "Can This Man Save
Iraq?" (Four months after Petraeus ended his stint in that city, the police chief he had
trained there went over to the insurgents and it
became a stronghold for them.)
By the time the occupation of Iraq turned into a full-scale disaster, he was back at Fort
Leavenworth running the U.S. Army's Combined Arms Center. During that period, he and another
officer, Marine Lieutenant General James Mattis -- does that name ring any bells? -- joined
forces to oversee the development
and publication of Field Service Manual 3-24 , Counterinsurgency Operations . It would be
the first official counterinsurgency (COIN) how-to book the military had produced since the
Vietnam years. In the process, he became
"the world's leading expert in counterinsurgency warfare." He would famously return to Iraq in
2007, that manual in hand, with five brigades, or 20,000 U.S. troops, for what would become
known as "the surge," or "the new way forward," an attempt to bail the Bush administration out
of its disastrous occupation of the country. His counterinsurgency operations would, like the
initial invasion, be hailed by experts and pundits in Washington (including Petraeus himself
) as a marvel and a success of the first order, as a true turning point in Iraq and in the war
on terror.
A decade later, with America's third Iraq War ongoing, you could be excused for viewing the
"successes" of that surge somewhat differently .
In the process, Petraeus (or "King David" as he was supposedly nicknamed by Iraqis
during his stint in Mosul) would become America's most celebrated, endlessly featured general,
and go on in 2008 to head U.S. Central Command (overseeing America's wars in both Afghanistan
and Iraq). In 2010, he would become the U.S. Afghan commander, largely so that he could perform
the counterinsurgency miracles in Afghanistan he had supposedly performed in Iraq. In 2011, he
became Barack Obama's CIA director only to crash and burn a year later in a
scandal over a lover-cum-biographer and the misuse of classified documents, after which he
morphed into a go-to expert on our wars and a partner at KKR, a global investment firm. In
other words, as with the three generals of the surge generation now ascendant in Washington,
including Petraeus's former COIN pal James Mattis (who also headed U.S. Central Command), he
presided over this country's failing wars in the Greater Middle East.
And only recently, 14 years after he and Atkinson were briefly trapped outside Najaf, in his
role as a pundit and prognosticator on his former wars, he
finally answered -- and not quippingly either -- the question that plagued him then. Though
his comments were certainly covered in the news (as anything he says is), in a sense no one
noticed. Asked by Judy
Woodruff of the PBS News Hour whether, in Donald Trump's America, it was "smart" to
once again send more U.S. troops surging into Afghanistan, he called the Pentagon's decision
"heartening," even as he warned that it wasn't a war that would end any time soon.
Instead, after so many years of involvement, experience, thought, and observation, in a
studio without a grain of sand, no less a dust storm in sight, he offered this observation:
"But this is a generational struggle. This is not something that is going to be won in a
few years. We're not going to take a hill, plant a flag, [and] go home to a victory parade.
And we need to be there for the long haul, but in a way that is, again, sustainable. We have
been in Korea for 65-plus years because there is an important national interest for that. We
were in Europe for a very long period of time, still there, of course, and actually with a
renewed emphasis now, given Russia's aggressive actions. And I think that's the way we need
to approach this."
In proposing such a "generational struggle" to be handed on to our children, if not
grandchildren, he's in good company. In recent times, the Pentagon high command, too, has been
adopting a "
generational approach " to Afghanistan and assumedly our other wars across the Greater
Middle East and Africa. Similarly, the scholars of the Brookings Institution have urged
on Washington's policymakers what they call "an enduring partnership" in Afghanistan: "The
U.S.-Afghan partnership should be recognized as generational in duration, given the nature of
the threat and the likely longevity of its future manifestations."
Even if, under further questioning by Woodruff, Petraeus wouldn't quite cop to a 60-year
Afghan war (that is, to a war lasting at least until 2061), his long-delayed answer to his own
question of the 2003 invasion moment was now definitive. Such American wars won't end. Not now.
Maybe not ever. And in a way you can't be much blunter or grimmer than that in your assessment
of the "successes" of the war on terror.
A Military Success Story of the Strangest Sort
Until James "Mad Dog" Mattis hit Washington in 2017, no American general of our era was ever
written about as much as, or in a more celebratory fashion, than David Petraeus. Adulatory (if
not fawning) profiles of him are legion. Even today, in the wake of
barely avoided felony and other charges (for, among other things, lying to the FBI) -- he
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the handling of classified documents and was sentenced to
two years of probation and a fine -- he may still be this country's most celebrated
general.
adult day care " in the White House -- are still treated like the only "
adults in the room " in our nation's capital, like, in short, American winners.
And yet consider recent events in the central African country of Niger, which already has an
operating U.S. drone base, another
under construction , and about 800
American troops quietly but permanently stationed there. It's also a country that, until this
moment, not an American in a million would have been able to locate on a map. On October 4th,
four Green Berets were killed and two others wounded during a " routine
training mission " there. Patrolling with Nigerien troops, they were ambushed by Islamic
militants -- whether from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb or a new
branch of ISIS remains unclear. That officially makes Niger at least the
eighth country , including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya,
to be absorbed into Washington's war on terror and, in case you hadn't noticed, in none of them
has that war ended and in none have U.S. forces triumphed.
And yet you could comb the recent mainstream coverage of the events in Niger without finding
any indication that those deaths represented a modest new escalation in the never-ending,
ever-spreading war on terror.
As was inevitable, in Iraq and Syria, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Islamic "caliphate" is finally
collapsing. The city of Mosul is back in Iraqi hands, as is Tal Afar ,
and more recently the town of
Hawija (with a rare mass
surrender of ISIS militants). Those were the last significant urban areas controlled by
ISIS in Iraq, while in Syria, the "
apocalyptic ruins " of the Islamic State's "capital," Raqqa, are also largely in the hands
of forces allied with and supported by the air power of the U.S. military. In what are now the
ravaged ruins of Syria and Iraq, however, such "victories" will inevitably prove as hollow as
were the "successful" invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq or the "successful" overthrow of Libyan
autocrat Muammar Gaddafi. Meanwhile, the Islamic State may have spread its brand to another
country with U.S. forces in it. And yet, across a vast swath of the planet, the wars of David
Petraeus, James Mattis, and the other generals of this era simply go on and on in a region
being fractured and devastated (and whose vast numbers of displaced refugees are, in turn,
helping to fracture
Europe).
Worse yet, it's a situation that can't be seriously discussed or debated in this country
because, if it were, opposition to those wars might rise and alternatives to them and the
by-now brain-dead decisions of those generals, including
newly heightened air wars and the latest
mini-surge in Afghanistan, might become part of an actual national debate.
So think of this as a military success story of the strangest sort -- success that can be
traced directly back to a single decision, now decades old, made by a long-discredited American
president, Richard Nixon. Without returning to that decision, there is simply no way to
understand America's twenty-first-century wars. In its own way, it would prove an act of genius
(if, at least, you wanted to fight never-ending wars until the end of time).
In any case, credit, when owed, must be given. Facing an antiwar movement that wouldn't go
away and, by the early 1970s, included significant numbers of both active-duty servicemen and
Vietnam veterans, the president and his secretary of defense,
Melvin Laird , decided to try to cut into its strength by eliminating the draft. Nixon
suspected that young men not endangered by the possibility of being sent into the Vietnam War
might be far less eager to demonstrate against it. The military high command was uncertain
about such a move. They worried, with reason, that in the wake of Vietnam it would be hard to
recruit for an all-volunteer military. Who in the world, they wondered, would want to be part
of such a discredited force? That was, of course, a version of Nixon's thinking turned upside
down, but the president moved ahead anyway and, on January 27,
1973 , conscription was ended.
There would be no more draft calls and the citizen's army, the one that had fought World War
II to victory and had raised such a ruckus about the grim and distasteful war in Vietnam, would
be no more.
In that single stroke, before he himself fell prey to the Watergate scandal and resigned his
presidency, Nixon functionally created a legacy for the ages, paving the way for the American
military to fight its wars "generationally" and lose them until hell froze over with the
guarantee that no one in this country would seem to
care a whit . Or put another way, can you truly imagine such silence in "the homeland" if
an American draft were continually filling the ranks of a citizen's army to fight a 16-year-old
war on terror, still spreading, and now considered "generational"? I doubt it.
So as American air power in places like Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan is ramped up yet
again, as the latest mini-surge of troops arrives in Afghanistan, as Niger enters the war, it's
time to put generals David Petraeus, James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and John Kelly in context.
It's time to call them what they truly are: Nixon's children.
If the answer here is, "Bring back the draft", I'm afraid that it's the wrong one.It's not
going to happen. Because it would mean drafting women. It would mean giving them M4s and
putting them on the front lines. They'd start dying in "routine training accidents". They'd
start coming home horribly maimed and disfigured. We'd have a generation of orphans whose
"mommy died in the war".
A very nice summary of the situation. If I may, I'd like to add two observations:
(1) The military and deep state are so thoroughly intertwined with the USA's domestic
economy now that any attempt to rein in the military and/or the intelligence and law
enforcement agencies that constitute the USA's deep state will have immediate and politically
unacceptable consequences.
For example, the USA has, if I remember correctly, some 13 carrier task forces, more than
six times as many as any other country and twice as many as all other countries in the world
combined. Yet rather than eliminating any of this grotesquely belligerent, budget busting
overkill, there is pressure to increase the number. The reasons behind this irrationality are
obvious. The home bases of each task force are thriving domestic mini-economies centered
entirely around catering to the needs of its carrier task force. Suggesting the task force's
elimination would be political suicide.
As another example, the UIS military is burdened with complex modern weapons systems
– airplanes, ships, ballistic weapons – that are extraordinarily expensive and
break down constantly under even the most ideal operating conditions. They are essentially so
useless and expensive that even our pampered military command would prefer to be without
them. Yet once again the impact on the domestic economy of eliminating these white elephants
is such that even suggesting cut backs is a dangerous political move.
The situation in the deep state is just as bad. The vast majority of the intrusions into
the privacy of citizens and foreigners is actually conducted by private, for profit,
corporate contractors. Contractors also play a major role in joint military-intelligence
operations overseas. Attempts to rein these contractors in have economic consequences that
terrify risk-averse politicians.
Our last great president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, foresaw what has happened and warned
against it in his farewell address regarding the military-industrial complex. His warnings
were not heeded and the situation has now metastasized beyond even Eisenhower's wildest
imaginings.
Without the malignant control Israel exercises over US foreign policy – with
increasing assistance from its quondam allies, Saudi Arabia and the other
terrorist-sponsoring, Sunni, Gulf sheikhdoms -- the USA would never have gotten enmeshed in
the unending series of wars that Israeli-provoked, US aggression has created in the Near
East, Central Asia, North Africa, and now Central Africa.
The neocons' malignant influence has also expanded US aggression into the Balkans,
Ukraine, the Baltic, and much of Eastern Europe, making an utterly unnecessary nuclear
confrontation with Russia increasingly likely.
I mentioned General P at the end of my series: "Lost Battles of the Vietnam War".
"Ironically, the USA succeeded in Vietnam only after its military left. Billions of
dollars in annual aid were no longer required, while American GIs were no longer killed or
maimed. There was no Chinese communist takeover of the region. In contrast, traditional
rivalries resurfaced leading to a short, yet bloody, war between China and Vietnam in 1979.
Without the distraction of fighting a war, the Vietnamese government was forced to address
economic problems. It recognized the need for foreign trade and the value of free enterprise
and has become a capitalistic economic power. American corporations now operate factories in
Vietnam while United Airlines has daily flights. Likewise, the USA will never win in
Afghanistan until its troops come home.
Given the ample historical facts available, many historians are amazed this "we never lost
a battle" myth persists. Part of the blame lies with certain professors, who published this
myth in articles like: "Lessons of History and Lessons of Vietnam" where in 1986 U.S. Army
Major David H. Petraeus (left) wrote: "Vietnam planted doubts in many military minds about
the ability of US forces to conduct successful large-scale counterinsurgencies. These
misgivings do not in all cases spring from doubts about the capabilities of American troops
and units per se; even in Vietnam, military leaders recall US units never lost a battle."
Despite this dismal scholarship, Petraeus became a four-star General, partly due to marriage
to the daughter of four-star Army General William Knowlton. General Petraeus was in charge of
counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and since he failed to learn from the
Vietnam war, he failed in those conflicts because of myths of U.S. military invincibility.
"
The all volunteer Army is a good thing for the USA and humanity in the long term. It selects
for the most violent amoral young American men and hopefully eliminates their genes from the
gene pool before they can reproduce. At a minimum, it gets a lot of them out of the USA so
that they commit their rapes, assaults, and other crimes somewhere else
The ideal war would be one in which the US Army fought another similar all volunteer army
in a close matchup and huge numbers on each side were killed. The problem is that the US Army
usually fights innocent conscripts and others forced to defend their actual homes and
families. It also kills many civilians. Those are relatively good genes the US Army is
removing from the gene pool.
Just Sayin, you are absolutely right about the intertwining of the economy and the
military-industrial-intelligence-media complex. My present home state of Texas is deeply
embedded with the military and actually allots a significant amount of state revenue to be
prepared to prevent the closure or shrinkage of any military installation. And otherwise
"progressive" political figures cite the need for this as a given, nothing to discuss here
I recall teaching political science at the time that Tricky Dick eliminated the draft, and
while my students applauded I warned them that we'd come to regret this. It didn't take long.
But MBlanc 46 is right, the draft isn't coming back. The powers that be do not want public
protests about their wars and their "war machine."
"military leaders recall US units never lost a battle" is a brilliantly evasive phrasing,
lawyer-like in its cunning, perhaps even Jesuitical. Sly dog, Petraeus.
Maybe that's the way to end this war and avoid future frivolous wars. I forget how many
women died in Vietnam, but it was a very small number.
On another note, Petreus studied Vietnam. Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression. Both
led us into intractable quagmires. When will we ever learn to not put people who study
failure into positions to lead to new failures?
It is a myth. US military leaders have lost a number of battles, sometimes spectacularly,
even in wars they claim to have won. Ike, himself, got some schooling from the Germans at
Kasserine Pass during WW2, though, to be fair, he was not the field commander there.
The militarist diatribe by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, a retired Marine general,
at a White House press briefing last week laid bare an open secret of American politics: behind
the façade of democratic rule, the United States increasingly resembles a military
dictatorship.
Firing back at criticisms of President Donald Trump's handling of the October 4 deaths of
four US soldiers in Niger, Kelly called members of the US military "the best one percent this
country produces." He then announced that he would take questions only from journalists who
were family, friends or acquaintances of soldiers killed in action.
In an expression of undisguised contempt for the civilian government, Kelly denounced
Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, who had publicly exposed Trump's callousness in his
condolence call to the widow of one of the soldiers killed in the October 4 incident. Kelly
falsely accused Wilson of bragging about securing funding for a government building in Miami
named after slain FBI agents, saying of her: "Empty barrels [make] the most noise."
The next day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders implied at a press briefing
that any questioning of the pronouncements of the military was out of bounds. "If you want to
get into a debate with a four-star Marine general," she said, "I think that that's something
highly inappropriate."
Concerned over the White House's undisguised contempt for the constitutional principle of
civilian control over the military, some military figures sought to verbally distance
themselves from Kelly's statements. ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday led with an interview
with retired four-star army general and former CIA director David Petraeus, who declared, "We
in uniform are fiercely protective of the rights of our fellow Americans to express themselves,
even if that includes criticizing us."
Kelly's remarks evoked such defensive statements not because they challenge nearly 250 years
of civilian rule in the United States, but because sections of the US political establishment
see it as necessary, at least for the time being, to cloak the massive power exercised by the
military over political life with the formal trappings of civilian rule.
This task, however, is increasingly difficult. Shortly after Petraeus's appearance, Senate
Minority Leader Charles Schumer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he had an
extraordinary exchange with moderator Chuck Todd. Asked whether as Senate Democratic leader he
had been briefed on the situation in Niger, Schumer nonchalantly replied, "Not yet."
When Todd asked whether Schumer knew the US had a thousand troops stationed in Niger,
Schumer replied, "Uh, No, I did not."
Todd pressed him further: "How do you describe it any other way than never-ending war?"
Schumer gave a meandering reply that ended with the words, "We have to keep at it."
In other words, the country's civilian leadership neither knows where the US military
operates, nor dares to inquire. Wars are not declared. Those who lead them are not accountable
to Congress or the people. The military is deployed at the discretion of the president and his
generals, as in the over one dozen African countries where US troops are engaged in combat
operations. The ranking member of the nominal opposition party has no problem with this state
of affairs.
Should anybody be surprised, then, when Kelly, one of three generals occupying the most
sensitive positions in Trump's cabinet, denounces a member of Congress for daring to question
the commander-in-chief?
One need only consider the rest of Sunday's broadcast of ABC's "This Week" interview
program. With only the slightest modifications, the entire program could have been produced in
a country run by a military junta. In the midst of host Martha Raddatz's interview with
Petraeus, the program cut to a prerecorded segment showing Raddatz on the deck of the aircraft
carrier USS Ronald Reagan as it carried out a war exercise off the Coast of North Korea, with
Raddatz declaring enthusiastically, "The Sea of Japan is bristling with warships."
The segment featured statements by the captain, the commander, a signal officer and a pilot
aboard the ship. Raddatz concluded, "With the region remaining on the brink, they have to be
ready to fight tonight." The program then went on to preview an upcoming eight-part miniseries
by the National Geographic Channel glorifying the Iraq war.
By this point, three quarters of the program had elapsed and not a single nonmilitary figure
had made an appearance on one of the premier political talk shows of the world's leading
"democracy."
Kelly's comments triggered statements of concern among some segments of the US press. "A
military dictatorship: that appears what the White House thinks the United States is," declared
CNN anchor Erin Burnett. Masha Gessen wrote in the New Yorker , "Consider this
nightmare scenario: a military coup. You don't have to strain your imagination -- all you have
to do is watch Thursday's White House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly,
defended President Trump's phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing
could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like."
But this raises the question: Would the United States really need to have a coup to
transition to military rule? Would it really look much different from today's "democracy"?
There would be the same parade of generals serving as talking heads on the news, the same
"embedded" reporters interviewing commanders on the front lines, the same members of Congress
(most dictatorships do not dissolve parliament) declaring they had "not yet" been briefed on
what the military has decided to do.
One could object that a military dictatorship would censor the press. But this has already
in large measure been accomplished. The search engine giant Google has announced that it is
promoting "authoritative" news content, while it buries links to left-wing sites in search
results, almost entirely removing results on Google News for the World
Socialist Web Site.
The ever-growing power of the military in the United States is not some accident or fluke
stemming from the personality of Donald Trump. Despite being at war for his entire two terms in
office, Trump's Democratic Party predecessor Barack Obama never once went to Congress for
authorization to use military force, and he defended his orders for drone assassinations of US
citizens as part of the prerogatives of the commander-in-chief.
In the current political furor over the deaths of the soldiers in Niger, the Democrats have
not questioned the legality of the deployment of thousands of US troops to Africa, carried out
without any public discussion and behind the backs of the population, but instead sought to
attack Trump from the right for being insufficiently deferential to the military.
After all, it is the Democrats and newspapers generally aligned with them, particularly the
New York Times and the Washington Post , which praised General Kelly,
together with fellow generals H. R. McMaster (national security adviser) and James Mattis
(secretary of defense) as the "grown-ups" in the White House, with Times columnist
Thomas Friedman calling on the generals to "reverse the moral rot that has infected the Trump
administration" in the person of the president.
The increasingly dictatorial forms of rule emerging in the United States are the outcome of
protracted and deep-rooted processes. Amid levels of social inequality that eclipse even those
of the Gilded Age, bourgeois democracy in the US is collapsing, replaced by direct rule by the
oligarchy and its partners in the military.
This process has been accelerated through a quarter century of aggressive wars, following
the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which have reached such a pitch that "never-ending war,"
in the words of CNN's Chuck Todd, is the new American reality, presently reaching a higher
stage with the looming threat of nuclear war over North Korea.
The move toward dictatorship in the United States, accompanied by the drive to world war, is
proceeding at breakneck speed. There is not much time. Workers and young people must mobilize
now to oppose it on the basis of a socialist and internationalist program aimed at overthrowing
the root cause of war, social inequality and dictatorship -- the capitalist system.
Look, let's be honest: since November 22, 1963 this country has been on the road to a
separate military government which controls and operates foreign policy. As a nation and as a
society we have reached the end of this road. We are at war in Niger with no Congressional
approval or even knowledge. Africom wants to destroy the African Union and guarantee access
to Africa's resources for the West and to insure the West can pay for those resources in
dollars. Requiring Western nations to pay for African resources with gold backed dinars was
one of Gaddafi's policies as head of the AU .That was the reason for the overthrow of Gaddafi
and his government. It is the reason U.S. troops are in Africa.
In the form of under-reported public opinion there still exists a measure of " civilian
control " over the military. To the degree that ordinary Americans see the government as "
democratic " they will tolerate large numbers of regular troops deployed. How can hundreds of
thousands of American soldiers be deployed to enforce the New Colonialism in the Middle East
or be stationed in an " enemy " country after a USA ordered nuclear attack ? Already sick of
" endless war ", the not so few " brave and bold " will not be put in a mutinous mood ?
The breaking point in Vietnam was , I recall , 500,000 American combat troops with hundreds
of casualties a week.
And that would put about 500,000 anti-war protesters in the streets on one day in 1969, or
1970 or 1971. Clearly US imperialism would have to share the spoils of war with many dubious
allies.
How much protest would a draft - of males and females- provoke ? . Fascist America cannot
possible resemble Nazi Germany overnight - with sheep-like submission. Or will it ? I am not
yet bumping into any goose stepping working class or middle class neighbors .
Will American fascist propaganda proclaim not a master RACE but a master NATION ? ( Rainbow
Fascism ? With female pilots dropping H-bombs ? ).
There are far too many people within the working class of this country that are ok with
the current situation and they aren't interested in seeing the truth. More than anything,
they are the real impediment to socialist change.
"When Todd asked whether Schumer knew the US had a thousand troops stationed in Niger,
Schumer replied, "Uh, No, I did not."
And when the same question was asked to Lindsey Graham, a Senator who sits on the The
Armed Services Committee, and is in favor of every military intervention he had the exact
same response: "No, I did not know." How is it possible, that the Senate and Congress in both
political parties are so totally unaware about military operations and yet have NO hesitation
about giving the Pentagon $700 billion in tax dollars.
It should be noted, that on every mainstream media news program questions about the US
involvement in Africa is always limited by just saying that it's all about fighting
"terrorism." Terrorism has become the cloth to smother any analytical conversation about US
Imperialism. Just use the word TERRORISM and then all military actions can be justified.
And that was the greatest "triumph" of 911 for the PNAC. They had the cover of terrorism
to unharness the power of militarism and the police state which can only lead to fascism.
"Amid levels of social inequality that eclipse even those of the Gilded Age, bourgeois
democracy in the US is collapsing, replaced by direct rule by the oligarchy and its partners
in the military."
Actually, terrorism has been a good excuse to promote unilateral US hegemony. The funding
and promoting of terrorists has been used to undermine other capitalistic oligarchies in
Russia and China.
The U.S. has never simply been a "democracy" (or a republic as right-wingers and
libertarian types, correctly, always like to point out). The country was founded in a
revolution, led largely by wealthy merchants from the North and plantation cavaliers from the
South; when they saw that various factions of the common people were assuming too much
socioeconomic power and freedom of action under the Articles of Confederation, they gathered
in Philadelphia to write a new foundational document, the much ballyhooed Constitution. It,
of course, favored their interests and set up a more centralized system of political power
(ironically the best part and most enduring legacy of the Constitution is clearly the first
10 amendments, that some of the wiser men there demanded as the price for their affirmation).
Of course the original document set up such anti-democratic measures as the electoral
college, the 3/5 of a person rule for slaves, voting rights extended only to white male
property owners, and selection of U.S. Senators by state legislatures.
As the country grew in strength and power, political coalitions of the rich and
well-connected ran roughshod over the populace in their quest for even more wealth. Much of
the time, they used mobilization of select segments of the population as part of their
process of socioeconomic and political control. In general, however, the populace had much
more say in policy and events, when they mobilized themselves and organized their own
institutions, and used that solidarity to fight physically on the streets and in the
workplaces, and politically in the halls of government with their own parties and candidates;
than when they acquiesced to meekly voting and merely supporting one of the two ruling class
political parties.
The very social advancements, now and for several previous decades under relentless
attack, that make life bearable in the U.S., e.g. the 8-hour day, public education, the right
for workers to organize to protect their interests, freedom from debtor's prison and various
types of debt peonage, widespread home ownership, and other items were the result of public
mobilization and demands for social justice by the common people. Never once did the ruling
class ever do anything other than resist social advancement and try to maintain the status
quo. They always took every measure, from constant military and paramilitary attacks against
workers attempting to organize unions up until the 1930s, to the more recent methods of using
spies, informers, and agents provocateurs to infiltrate the popular organizations that
protest the wars and other outrages, to maintain their power and socioeconomic
privileges.
While the American ruling class was always very aggressive, and never shrank from using
military force to obtain their objectives, it was not until the post-WW 2 period that they
decided to maintain a huge standing military during the "peace" that followed that horrific
war. The U.S. rulers saw the opportunity to push the greatly weakened British Empire from
their post as global hegemon, and to take the many advantages that accrue from that economic,
military, and political global position. Of course, part and parcel of the benefits and costs
of assuming the throne of "Global Hegemon", is the position as Capitalist Enforcer keeping
the sea lanes open and granting special economic concessions to needed allies. Even President
Dwight D. Eisenhower became disturbed by the resultant growth of socioeconomic and political
power, in the hands of the military and its supporting economic and political infrastructure
in the armaments industry and congress. He introduced the term Military Industrial Complex
into the lexicon (changed from Military Industrial Congressional Complex by the urging of
political aides and advisors).
The powerful position of the U.S., as the hegemonic power, increased the advantages and
opportunities for American capitalists to move their investments, to places where labor was
cheaper and regulations were more lax. After 70+ years of this process the U.S. is now
greatly weakened itself, much like the British Empire was after WW 1, but still stronger
perhaps than the British Empire was after WW 2. The military grew in both absolute and
relative power, as did the vultures of finance capital, while the civilian goods and services
part of the socioeconomic system stagnated and shrank both relatively and even absolutely.
The military high command, the great majority of whom are personally always setting
themselves up for post-military careers, as highly paid consultants and operatives for the
armaments industries, or as "expert commentators" for the Corporate Controlled Media
militarist cheering sections, has become much stronger and visible in the councils of power
than used to be the case. In fact, this is a harbinger of the fact that the end of American
dominance and hegemony draws nigh.
It is no coincidence, that this increased role of the military brass in direct governance
is occurring, at the same time that right-wing anarchist wreckers like Steve Bannon are an
active part of the Republican Party's meetings of their elites and semi-elites. The final
destruction of the New Deal and Great Society social welfare institutions would free up many
trillions of dollars, for the elite to loot for personal gain and to fund a last gasp
militarist push. This is a far cry from earlier, and wiser, constellations of political
coalitions and socioeconomic policy making. Well suited to a myopic ruling class, in which
Marie Antoinette (let them eat cake) would be very comfortable.
Suddenly, the corporate media and even the usually far-sighted WSWS have finally realized
that the US is a military dictatorship under President Donald Trump. In fact the US has been
a military dictatorship for years, arguably starting during the Bush/Cheney regime, but
certainly during President Barack Obama's regime.
The US became a military dictatorship, when Obama declared in 2011 the authority to
murder, torture and imprison anyone on the planet at his whim, without the slightest whiff of
due process.
Although, I would argue for the 2001 passage of the Patriot Act and the earlier 2001 Deep
State operations in New York, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania, that set up the rah-rah
atmosphere necessary for a coup.
Of course on some level November 22, 1963 was the real beginning when a decent, though
certainly flawed, reformist politician was summarily and very publicly executed; and there
were the two major follow-up jobs against MLK and RFK. Endless colonial wars and horrific
covert agency operations became the norm, and unless massive popular mobilization occurred,
these machinations continued despite whatever criticism was proffered. As JFK said "those who
make peaceful reform impossible make violent revolution inevitable". He also proposed a
general gradual disarmament that would have ended with all the militaries on the planet being
disbanded with only small reserve forces and police remaining. That was in June in his famous
American University Speech. Five months later he was eliminated.
The murder of the 35th President of the US was the beginning of the shift from civilian
rule to the military. Kennedy had said that the torch was passing to a "new generation" but
the old generation said "no way" with the bullets that killed him. Right from that event LBJ
pursued a program of war and allowed Israel to produce nukes which Kennedy had ordered Golda
Mier not to do because he did not want an arms race in the middle East. Kennedy also was a
friend of Patrice Lumumba and had promised him aid for the Congo before his(Kennedy's)
election. The Dulles CIA then assassinated Lumumba right before the election. That is why
Kennedy wanted to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces". It is now a well known fact that
three of the plotters of Kennedy's murder became US presidents and all pursued wars of
aggression subsequentially.
The US is not likely to become a military dictatorship. There is no need since US style
democracy works fine for the Military industrial complex. It also channels peoples protests
safely into criticisms of an Individual (Trump) instead of the system
Off course, if there is a mass movement of the working class, this could change and there is
a real possibility of the US becoming a dictatorship.
Yes, if there was a mass movement of the working class this would change the trajectory.
But this is not in the material conditions we find ourselves in.
Decades of neglect for democratic thinking, let alone democracy, has severed US citizens
from rational reasoning.
No, the military is the dark force of enforcement in the protection of the
petrol/dollar
This Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a real piece of work, too. I happened to catch her on the
TV news making her "get into a debate with a four-star Marine general" utterance. I thought
the sneer on her upper lip was probably the most telling thing about it.
The US government is fearing that it is loosing control over the world politics. In order
to keep it's hegemony in tact, the only alternative left to Trump is military aggression. So,
he needs military dictatorship' to achieve his goal. Suppressing dissent internally through
military deployment and suppressing external rebellion by militarisation is the policy
adopted to control opposition
Trump needs the military, the military needs Trump. For as long as the Orange Caligula is
the center of attention the deflection works. This is why he was selected.
"ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday led with an interview with retired four-star army
general and former CIA director David Petraeus, who declared, "We in uniform are fiercely
protective of the rights of our fellow Americans to express themselves, even if that includes
criticizing us.""
and
"Masha Gessen wrote in the New Yorker, "Consider this nightmare scenario: a military coup.
You don't have to strain your imagination -- all you have to do is watch Thursday's White
House press briefing, in which the chief of staff, John Kelly, defended President Trump's
phone call to a military widow, Myeshia Johnson. The press briefing could serve as a preview
of what a military coup in this country would look like.""
Made me laugh bitterly. A war criminal/the (former?) master of back ops and a notorious
pro-NATO Russian propaganda person are now ones saving USA democracy?
As Angry Arab noted
"US media worship of the US military
The Washington Post and other media have no problem in referring to lies by Trump. But when
it came to lies uttered by Gen. Kelly, the Post among others only dared to say that he was
"not accurate"."
Comrades it is not surprising at all to see US under current conditions descending into a
Military dictatorship. The outcome of years of overseas imperial wars and growing social
discrepancy in America has undermined the relevance of bourgeois democratic state
institutions. This trend accelerated under President Obama and now under the Trump
administration it has taken a new dimension.
A wise Latin American diplomat observed that military dictatorships are not evident by men
wearing peaked caps giving orders to elected officials, but to budgets.
More than half of America's discretionary budget is spent on the military and the White
House is run by three generals.
Of course, all these `public funds` spent, military actions taken are to make Americans
secure, and the US and Pentagon safe for Wall Street and the military-industrial complex!
There is no contradiction there!
The truth may be that neither the Us people, nor the US government controls foreign policy of
the nation after 1963. MIC controls it. After all neocons are just hired guns, propagandists for
MIC. They have no courage, no integrity, nothing, except desire for a cramps form MIC table.
Militarism is the doctrine by which the USA operate. As Eisenhower stated the danger was the
capture of the nation by the MIC and it did happened in 1963. This is more about MIC interest in
profits, then the US population interest in absolute security. After all number of homicides in
the USA are above level in many other nations.
Bush II with his neocon clique just skillfully sold the US population the war in Iraq, which
was already planned by PNAC long ago. In no way Iraq war was about enhancing the US people
security, it was about oil.
Notable quotes:
"... It's not just the neocons. This is a deeply rooted American problem. ..."
"... Need an example? Let us examine everyone's least favorite (and ever present) national ritual. We've all been there: you queue up, empty those pockets, undo the belt, (maybe) kick off your shoes, do a final liquid check, and wait your turn for airport security. Depending on the day and the culture of the town, you listen as a cynical, jovial, or sometimes even clever TSA agent rattles off familiar instructions. "No metallic objects blah blah blah liquid ounces step back step forward." Wait, wait some more, then we raise our hands in a -- for me -- familiar pose of enemy surrender. ..."
"... But realistically the sharper minds among us know we're not really safe. Motivated terrorists are inevitably smarter than the average TSA agent, and the entire ritual (usually) only deters yesterday's threat. The rational mind recognizes the illusion of it all. One is never truly safe from terrorism -- or lightning strikes for that matter -- in any absolute sense. Nevertheless, life goes on. It must. ..."
"... If you're a regular reader of TomDispatch , you've heard me drone on about the dangers of military optimism , and you are certainly familiar with Andrew Bacevich's powerful takedown of the all-volunteer military. That leaves the third tradition: America's fixation on the mythical search for absolute security. ..."
"... Some level of threat, insecurity, or uncertainty is inevitable, and to assume otherwise is to seek the impossible. Unfortunately, after 9/11 that's exactly the path the United States embarked upon: to defeat "evil" and restore the bygone era of "free security." So here we are, tilting at windmills amidst fruitless campaigns across rather inhospitable sections of the globe. ..."
"... On it goes, the eternal urge for American troops to do something about the over-hyped Islamic. Terrorist. Threat. A surprisingly bipartisan foreign policy consensus combines with a flourishing military-industrial complex, American armaments industry, and terrified -- often by the proclamations of those same politicians -- public to ensure there's likely to be more military interventions in the near future. ..."
"... What amazes me is that by any military measure, the military failed its missions. Rather than demand answers and change, the American public blithely ignores the failures, claims to admire the generals and admirals who led the failures and embraces international violence without end. ..."
"... But I disagree that the people expect perfect security. The American people aren't given a choice. I'm certain that, prior to the invasion of Iraq, had Congress proceeded with a national debate on the efficacy of an invasion as well as the quality of the evidence of WMDs, their wouldn't have been an invasion. ..."
"... This is an issue of governance. The structures of governance created by the Constitution are no longer capable of providing good decisions for the nation. ..."
"... And really, the fact is that the USA is bounded by oceans to the east and west and friendlies to the north and south. We have little need for a military to begin with, all-volunteer or otherwise. Of course that must not be openly discussed. ..."
"... You have this huge behemoth who isn't all that bright. Wouldn't you try to figure out ways to get the Rhino charging into conflicts that could tip the balance into your favor? ..."
"... For example, ISIS rose in Syria because Obama didn't enforce the 'red line'. Wow, how would attacking Assad have deterred ISIS yet this is folklore repeated by talking heads fed to them by respected analysts. ..."
"... Our incessant need to 'do something' in the endless need for perfect security can easily be manipulated. Our foreign policy experts aren't that bright. Rex Tillerson should have been laughed at when he called for the Shiite militias to 'leave Iraq and go home' (Rex, they are Iraqis, they were born in Iraq) but it fits the narrative. ..."
"... Follow the money and see who's getting rich from America's quest for "Absolute Security". And it seems to have been (and still is) one helluva of a "marketing campaign" that sadly way to many Americans have bought into. Meanwhile the Republic rots. ..."
"... Democracies can be much more easily managed externally. You can manipulate who runs for office, how much advertising support they'll get, how ballots are counted, who gets to vote, etc And you only need to control 51% of the elected officials. From that, you can get laws passed that ensure the profitability of your business investments are maximized. Non-democratic leaders tend to have too much ill-gotten wealth to be so easily manipulated. ..."
It's not just the neocons. This is a deeply rooted American problem.
Ah, the
illusion of security. Most Americans love it, need it, crave it.
Need an example? Let us examine everyone's least favorite (and ever present) national
ritual. We've all been there: you queue up, empty those pockets, undo the belt, (maybe) kick
off your shoes, do a final liquid check, and wait your turn for airport security. Depending on
the day and the culture of the town, you listen as a cynical, jovial, or sometimes even clever
TSA agent rattles off familiar instructions. "No metallic objects blah blah blah liquid ounces
step back step forward." Wait, wait some more, then we raise our hands in a -- for me --
familiar pose of enemy surrender.
If you're lucky, the whole affair consumes less than 20 minutes. Then you load the plane, do
a cursory check for vaguely Arab faces -- feel a tinge of liberal guilt about that -- and
settle in for the miracle of flight.
But realistically the sharper minds among us know we're not really safe.
Motivated terrorists are inevitably smarter than the average TSA agent, and the entire ritual
(usually) only deters yesterday's threat. The rational mind recognizes the illusion of it all.
One is never truly safe from terrorism -- or lightning strikes for that matter -- in any
absolute sense. Nevertheless, life goes on. It must.
There's just one problem. At the macro level, policymakers, politicians, and the public
alike actually expect total security from terrorism. Well, at least one kind of terror:
as President Trump so loves to enunciate: Radical. Islamic. Terrorism. Never mind that
more American deaths stem from right-wing extremists, or that the chances of dying in a
terror attack are comparable to drowning
in your own bathtub. Because the public, and our elected leaders, demand absolute security from
terror, the United States has spent the last decade and a half shipping people like me on one
quixotic adventure after another across the Middle East.
Brace yourself for an uncomfortable fact: the blame for today's indecisive wars doesn't rest
with George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump alone. Rather, these quagmires represent
symptoms of an entirely American problem. While it is quite satisfying to blame Iraq and
Afghanistan on a group of neoconservative, interventionist
zealots in the Bush administration, that explanation will not entirely suffice. A
combination of three factors has enabled the lengthy, inconclusive, and unnecessary "wars" of
the 21st century: optimism about the efficacy of force, our current all-volunteer system of
military service, and a fixation on absolute security.
If you're a regular reader of TomDispatch , you've heard me drone on about the dangers of
military
optimism , and you are certainly familiar with Andrew Bacevich's powerful
takedown of the all-volunteer military. That leaves the third tradition: America's fixation
on the mythical search for absolute security.
Here I must invoke critical analysis
by the eminent military historian John Shy. Shy identifies several enduring characteristics of
American military culture, among them "a concept of military security that was expressed not in
relative but in absolute terms." From the outset, Americans' inherent military optimism has
combined with this distinctive obsession for absolute security. As Shy notes
, American interpretations of national security are traditionally binary -- either "the United
States is secure, or it is not; it is threatened, or it is not." Only that's not reality.
Global geopolitics play out in a vast gray abyss. Some level of threat, insecurity, or
uncertainty is inevitable, and to assume otherwise is to seek the impossible. Unfortunately,
after 9/11 that's exactly the path the United States embarked upon: to defeat "evil" and restore
the bygone era of "free security." So here we are, tilting at windmills amidst fruitless
campaigns across rather inhospitable sections of the globe.
When combined with fear -- which, along with honor and (often economic) interest, are the
prime motivators of human behavior --
obsession with absolute security led post-9/11 policymakers down the road towards open-ended
military deployments. This just wasn't realistic or smart. Too many places on earth house
potential terrorists or anti-American extremists for our military to reasonably handle them
all. Moreover, it is unclear whether the deployment of U.S. troops doesn't in fact do more
harm
than good. It is now certain that one of Osama bin Laden's goals in the 9/11 attacks was to
lure American ground forces into Islamic Southwest Asia in order to inflame local passions and
ignite a millennial holy war. As bin Laden himself declared
: "Iraq has become a point of attraction and a restorer of our energies." Well, mission
accomplished!
While intelligence operations, Special Forces raids, and limited conventional incursions are
(maybe) necessary and appropriate, prolonged occupations in the Middle East tend only to
radicalize the locals and dangerously conflate nationalist with religious resistance. Human
beings are a proud lot. We tend to get touchy about having our capitals seized and our streets
filled with foreign soldiers. Think Americans would respond any differently? Hardly. Exhibit A:
Boston, 1775. Exhibit B: Not one, but two iterations of the film Red Dawn
President Bush and his advisors wasted no opportunity instilling in the American people a
distinct, if convenient, Manichean worldview. It all centered on mythical promises of perfect
security. The events of 9/11, we were told,
changed everything. The globe was now divided between the forces of good and evil. Bush
communicated this quite clearly in an
address to the nation just days after 9/11: "Our responsibility to history is already
clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil."
Such proclamations define the contemporary American quest for absolute security. If
terrorism exists, then so does evil, and evil must be swept away to avoid a 9/11 repeat. No one
seems to ask whether a relatively small, 10-division, professional, volunteer army is even
equipped to rid the world of evil. An even tougher question is whether U.S. military force has
any utility in the Mideast these days. Two wars and 16 years in uniform later, this
soldier, at least, isn't so sure. Either way, it's not the average citizen's problem. Leave
that quandary to a volunteer, warrior caste. The new American way.
But it gets worse. Think for a moment about all the counterproductive
decisions this (and previous) administrations have made in this pursuit of absolute security
from -- "Islamic" -- terrorists:
Travel (read: Muslim) bans and tightened immigration
limitations as the world suffers through the worst
refugee crisis since the Second World War. All the while, ISIS has taken to calling Trump's travel
policy the "blessed ban."
Warrantless wiretapping and a domestic surveillance
state (to paraphrase Mr. Trump) the likes of which this world has never seen. Anyone else
miss the long ago-demolished Fourth Amendment
A 16-year military campaign that has cost the U.S. military about 7,000
killed and more than 50,000 wounded in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen.
What exactly did they all sacrifice for anyway?
And that's but a cursory list.
On it goes, the eternal urge for American troops to do something about the
over-hyped Islamic. Terrorist. Threat. A surprisingly bipartisan foreign policy consensus
combines with a flourishing military-industrial complex, American
armaments industry, and terrified -- often by the proclamations of those same politicians
-- public to ensure there's likely to be more military interventions in the near
future.
Perhaps it is time to shed naïve notions of absolute security and reinstate the
American people as agents of national defense. Ever since Nixon ended the draft, the vast
majority of Americans have ceased to fear, expect, or even consider national service. The
result is an apathetic citizenry disconnected from an all-volunteer, warrior caste. When
combined with their obsession over absolute security, American apathy proves the lethal nail in
the coffin. Seen in this light, America's decade of failures appear wholly predictable. Perhaps
it is worth reflecting on this and questioning the true -- if unpleasant -- legacy of the "War
on Terror," as hawks once again beat the drums for the ever expanding interventions in Syria,
Iraq, and who knows where else.
Should the U.S. once again escalate its commitments in Iraq, I suspect the outcome will
prove disappointing. But who knows: perhaps in the Persian Gulf, the third time's the
charm.
Anyway, I don't buy it. Here's one absolute you can bet on: we've already lost.
Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army officer and
former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and
Afghanistan. He is the author of Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of
the Surge. Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .
Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
"Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government."
Maybe they should. Laugh.
I won't back away for a minute that after 9/11 we should have shut down the border. We
should overhauled our immigration enforcement.
I remain convinced then a now Iraq was a huge strategic and ethical error, for which we
have not yet received consequence. Afghanistan too was overkill and a needless invasion to
the goal.
The subsequent meddling only made matters worse. We lost in Iraq. We may lose in
Afghanistan.
And I don't think a draw down is isolationist. I don't think a serious rethinking of our
role in the world is isolationist, but it is required by a nation unhinged till by the event
of Sept 11. I won't budge on illegal immigration and the undermining of the US citizens
opportunities by other schemes of foreign labor.
We do have some areas of reasoned joint operations. I think ensuring the security of
Niger, until it can secure itself is reasoned.
I wanted get that up front before agreeing with a good deal of this article. I re main
guilt ridden about Iraq, because so much tragedy there is squarely on us. But that ship has
long since sailed.
Finally, a military officer says what needs to be said. long ago, I was involved with then
Vice-President George Bush's counter terrorism. The assumption was not if the US would be
attacked but when and yes, the use of passenger aircraft was a considered option.
When possibility turned into reality, Bush the torturer panicked and shortly there after
panicked the nation. It has yet to recover.
What amazes me is that by any military measure, the military failed its missions. Rather
than demand answers and change, the American public blithely ignores the failures, claims to
admire the generals and admirals who led the failures and embraces international violence
without end. This will not end well without drastic change.
Great article. But I disagree that the people expect perfect security. The American people
aren't given a choice. I'm certain that, prior to the invasion of Iraq, had Congress proceeded
with a national debate on the efficacy of an invasion as well as the quality of the evidence of
WMDs, their wouldn't have been an invasion.
This is an issue of governance. The structures of governance created by the Constitution
are no longer capable of providing good decisions for the nation.
And really, the fact is that the USA is bounded by oceans to the east and west and
friendlies to the north and south. We have little need for a military to begin with,
all-volunteer or otherwise. Of course that must not be openly discussed.
I like to comment on the article that is written rather than retreat into my pet subject. In
this spirit, I'd go as far to say that Islamists have tried to take advantage of this view by
provoking us into wars to upset the game table. Think about it, wouldn't you? You have this
huge behemoth who isn't all that bright. Wouldn't you try to figure out ways to get the Rhino
charging into conflicts that could tip the balance into your favor?
For example, ISIS rose in Syria because Obama didn't enforce the 'red line'. Wow, how
would attacking Assad have deterred ISIS yet this is folklore repeated by talking heads fed to
them by respected analysts.
Our incessant need to 'do something' in the endless need for perfect security can easily
be manipulated. Our foreign policy experts aren't that bright. Rex Tillerson should have been
laughed at when he called for the Shiite militias to 'leave Iraq and go home' (Rex, they are
Iraqis, they were born in Iraq) but it fits the narrative.
Great article for as they say someone in the know. Another slant however.
I am from the very small so called silent generation born and raised by the greatest
generation.
When WW 2 ended at the troops came home as before they left and when they returned we never
locked our doors we left the keys in the car. I could travel to a favorite hinting area and
give my shot gun to the pilot during flight.
"And really, the fact is that the USA is bounded by oceans to the east and west and friendlies
to the north and south."
If you think our relationship with Mexico is friendly, you are misreading Mexico's
intentions. No state that willfully support violating your border regulations and who citizens
undermine the integrity of the Us has friendly intentions. You might want to read La Raza's
charter.
Spend one minute listening to Hispanics in los angele, san diego, and san francisco complain
about the theft of Mexican territory --
It sounds over the top, but what we have in the making is a low scale war to recapture the
southwest.
____________
"I don't think the security motive is a major or constant theme of warmongering
propaganda."
There's a significant shift since then. Before the lean has been in support of existing
democracies. Currently the press is to make democracies and if that means war so be it. The
interventionists to that end are winning that argument to make democracies.
On its face it' an appealing grand narrative, in practice impractical, destructive and
probably infeasible.
Follow the money and see who's getting rich from America's quest for "Absolute Security".
And it seems to have been (and still is) one helluva of a "marketing campaign" that sadly way
to many Americans have bought into. Meanwhile the Republic rots.
"The interventionists to that end are winning that argument to make democracies."
Democracies can be much more easily managed externally. You can manipulate who runs for
office, how much advertising support they'll get, how ballots are counted, who gets to vote,
etc And you only need to control 51% of the elected officials. From that, you can get laws
passed that ensure the profitability of your business investments are maximized. Non-democratic
leaders tend to have too much ill-gotten wealth to be so easily manipulated.
Again the article and the comments are totally spot on .
e.g:
"Kelly's remarks evoked such defensive statements not because they challenge nearly 250 years
of civilian rule in the United States, but because sections of the US political establishment
see it as necessary, at least for the time being, to cloak the massive power exercised by the
military over political life with the formal trappings of civilian rule. This task, however, is increasingly difficult. Shortly after Petraeus's appearance, Senate
Minority Leader Charles Schumer appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he had an
extraordinary exchange with moderator Chuck Todd. Asked whether as Senate Democratic leader
he had been briefed on the situation in Niger, Schumer nonchalantly replied, "Not yet."
When Todd asked whether Schumer knew the US had a thousand troops stationed in Niger,
Schumer replied, "Uh, No, I did not." Todd pressed him further: "How do you describe it any
other way than never-ending war?" Schumer gave a meandering reply that ended with the words,
"We have to keep at it."
In other words, the country's civilian leadership neither knows where the US military
operates, nor dares to inquire. Wars are not declared. Those who lead them are not
accountable to Congress or the people. The military is deployed at the discretion of the
president and his generals, as in the over one dozen African countries where US troops are
engaged in combat operations. The ranking member of the nominal opposition party has no
problem with this state of affairs.
Peter L. • 2 hours ago
Look, let's be honest: since November 22, 1963 this country has been on the road to a
separate military government which controls and operates foreign policy. As a nation and as a
society we have reached the end of this road. We are at war in Niger with no Congressional
approval or even knowledge. Africom wants to destroy the African Union and guarantee access
to Africa's resources for the West and to insure the West can pay for those resources in
dollars. That was the reason for the overthrow of Ghaddafi and his government. It is the
reason U.S. troops are in Africa."
Yes, one can argue that McCain set in motion the series of events that put Trump in the
White House by selecting
Sarah Palin as his running mate in August 2008 . Of course, the counterargument is that
McCain basically had no choice, that he was under severe pressure to throw a bone to the
wingnuts, that he was held hostage by the far right. In other words, it wasn't Palin per
se that caused McCain to lose the 2008 presidential election, but the right-wing forces that
intimidated McCain into making such a choice .
"... It's easy to understand why some of President Trump's senior advisers privately consider him a "moron," with a limited vocabulary and stunning lack of normal human empathy, as William Blum explains at Anti-Empire Report. ..."
"... Capturing the wisdom and the beauty of Donald J. Trump in just one statement escaping from his charming mouth: "Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the world, by far." [Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2017] ..."
"... And in case you still don't fully appreciate that, notice that he specifies that our equipment is the best in the world BY FAR! That means that no other country is even close! Just imagine! ..."
"... Lucky for the man his seeming incapacity for moral or intellectual embarrassment. He's twice blessed. His fans like the idea that their president is no smarter than they are. This may well serve to get the man re-elected, as it did with George W. Bush. ..."
"... Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II ..."
"... Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower ..."
It's easy to understand why some of President Trump's senior advisers privately consider
him a "moron," with a limited vocabulary and stunning lack of normal human empathy, as William
Blum explains at Anti-Empire Report.
Capturing the wisdom and the beauty of Donald J. Trump in just one statement escaping
from his charming mouth: "Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is
delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the
world, by far." [Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2017]
Here the man thinks that everyone will be impressed that the American military has never
been stronger. And that those who, for some unimaginable reason, are not impressed with that
will at least be impressed that military equipment is being added EACH DAY. Ah yes, it's long
been a sore point with most Americans that new military equipment was being added only once a
week.
And if that isn't impressive enough, then surely the fact that the equipment is NEW will win
people over. Indeed, the newness is important enough to mention twice. After all, no one likes
USED military equipment. And if newness doesn't win everyone's heart, then BEAUTIFUL will
definitely do it. Who likes UGLY military equipment? Even the people we slaughter all over the
world insist upon good-looking guns and bombs.
And the best in the world. Of course. That's what makes us all proud to be Americans. And
what makes the rest of humanity just aching with jealousy. And in case you don't fully
appreciate that, notice that he adds that it's the best ANYWHERE in the world.
And in case you still don't fully appreciate that, notice that he specifies that our
equipment is the best in the world BY FAR! That means that no other country is even close! Just
imagine! Makes me choke up.
Lucky for the man his seeming incapacity for moral or intellectual embarrassment. He's
twice blessed. His fans like the idea that their president is no smarter than they are. This
may well serve to get the man re-elected, as it did with George W. Bush.
I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not
disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in
Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people
who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often
happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example
to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly
went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible
that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to
distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda
against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic
ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal
states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the
reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as
once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the
historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.
In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech "
think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian
government-funded RT television network.
Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank?
Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank
listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA
director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent
Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.
I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently
anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"
It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the
ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials,
when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.
So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are
well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who
appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to
the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders
include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European
Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the
Prague-based "League of Human Rights."
Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political
"enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and
Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in
the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the
Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took
exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech
"European Values" think tank.
Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically
considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?
"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the
marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US
citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their
own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.
This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign
policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and
then Congress
appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."
That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our
objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How
anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of
tyranny?
The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We
must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your
generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight
for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.
I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not
disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in
Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people
who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often
happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example
to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly
went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible
that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to
distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda
against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic
ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal
states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the
reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as
once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the
historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.
In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech "
think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian
government-funded RT television network.
Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank?
Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank
listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA
director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent
Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.
I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently
anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"
It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the
ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials,
when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.
So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are
well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who
appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to
the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders
include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European
Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the
Prague-based "League of Human Rights."
Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political
"enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and
Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in
the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the
Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took
exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech
"European Values" think tank.
Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically
considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?
"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the
marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US
citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their
own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.
This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign
policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and
then Congress
appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."
That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our
objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How
anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of
tyranny?
The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We
must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your
generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight
for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.
There is no hatred more complete and no malevolence more fanatical than that held by the
American political class for the American people. The commissar's rage against the kulaks,
the jihadist
's fury against the infidel ,
the
inquisitor 's wrath against the
unbeliever , all of this pales in comparison to the genocidal bloodlust
Senators and
Congressmen have against their own
constituents . And even as they gleefully promote the outsourcing of jobs,
the importation of cheap
labor , and the ruthless extirpation of property, wealth and liberty, these shameless
parasites demand their slaves die to export their filthy System all over the world.
Like a dying venomous snake , McCain
is using his final moments to strike at President Trump and those who supported him.
In remarks gleefully repeated by the sociopathic
controlled media, McCain simpered:
To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon
the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some
half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than
solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that
Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.
McCain's mumblings are practically self-discrediting. But as American journalists exist to
serve power and
suppress
dissent it's unlikely the Senator has been or will ever be asked to defend such ludicrous
claims.
McCain draws a distinction between "nationalism" and "patriotism," with the former being
defined by the concrete realities of history and heritage and the latter formed by mysterious
abstractions.
"We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil," he explained. "We are the custodians
of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad."
These ideals, as is customary when they are invoked, are not defined. Yet given McCain's
tributes to the "immigrant's dream," the land which "reinvents itself," and the current
"international order," his remarks are being hyped as a rebuke of "Trump_vs_deep_state" and celebrated by
Leftist journalists who suddenly claim the right to define what is "conservatism" or
"Republicanism" [ John
McCain just delivered a total and complete takedown of Trump_vs_deep_state, by Chris
Cillizza, CNN, October 17, 2017]
McCain's ideals would be unrecognizable
, not only to the Founding Fathers, but to practically any other American generation in
history. Would the Father of Our Country have countenanced endless interventionism? Would
either Jefferson or
Hamilton have
recognized a moral imperative for self-annihilation? Would any Federalist or anti-Federalist
celebrate the replacement of the very people who had just won independence from the British
Empire?
McCain's denunciation of "nationalism" is also selective. McCain is quite eager to defend
the borders of other nations. "We are all Ukrainians," he declared on one occasion [ Senator John
McCain: "We Are All Ukrainians, by Jay Newton-Small, Time, February
28, 2014]. "We are all
Georgians" he pronounced on another.
It is only when it comes to America that McCain's "patriotism" becomes abstract and
imaginary. Indeed, it seems every people on earth has a right to "blood and soil" which must be
safeguarded by American arms, except Americans themselves.
Even as this is written, Kurds and Iraqis are on the brink of war [ The Kurdish War with
Iraq, by Thomas Ricks, Foreign Policy, October 17, 2017]. If it
erupts, once again, the tribal hatreds and border
conflicts of peoples who should be of interest to us
only in anthropology textbooks will be cause for the death of American soldiers.
The sacrifice of our military is framed as "leadership." "That leadership has had its costs,
but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did," McCain gloats. And he is
right, in speaking of his peers; he and his fellow parasites are indeed incomparably powerful
and wealthy.
But such power and wealth does not trickle down to those he ostensibly represents. The wages
of working Americans have
stagnated for decades , and
even skilled workers can barely earn a wage sufficient to support a family.
And "power?" The tyranny of George III that our forefathers rose against would be a glorious
boon for ordinary Americans of today, as their lives , families,
communities , and property are forfeit to the whims of unelected bureaucrats, publicly
funded "activists," or sadistic reporters eager to rouse a mob. McCain's tribute to America's
"power" and "wealth" is reminiscent of an Ottoman sultan boasting about shared victories to the
janissaries he's kidnapped from Eastern Europe.
The democratic system McCain pledges Americans to defend is a form of government in which
elected officials blatantly lie to their constituents and then taunt them at the very moment of
betrayal. Consider McCain himself. He campaigned on repealing Obamacare, and then gleefully
voted to save it [
Mr. McCain Goes To Washington, by John Fund, National Review, July
30, 2017] He
promised to "complete the danged fence" but instead has done his best to make sure Arizona
ceases to be an American state in any meaningful sense.
One may disagree with monarchy or some other form of unelected leadership, but it seems
vastly preferably to a system where political power is awarded to the most outrageous liar.
Such a system should not be tolerated, let alone fought for.
Besides, the liberal international order McCain defends is nothing of the kind. The Western
world is not free. [ The Liberalism That
Isn't, by Costin Alamariu, Daily Caller, September 7, 2017] East
Germany in the 1980s was in some ways more free than
contemporary Germany is today: it would not have occurred to Erich Honecker to expose his
subjects to mass sexual assault at the hands of Muslim invaders and then arrest anyone who
protests. [ Married couple sentenced for migrant critical Facebook post, by Chris
Tomlinson, Breitbart, July 8, 2016]
The Occupation Government in Washington has presided over the
Death of the West . The world order McCain defends is, quite explicitly, built on the
dispossession of the European-Americans who actually created the American polity. If our
civilization or country is to survive in any meaningful sense, that order must be
destroyed.
And that means replacing the political class, the enemy collaborators, exemplified by the
likes of Senator McCain. His warmongering against a nuclear armed Russia is unhinged
. His desire to hurt our own nation is so unrelenting and energetic one wonders if he
is working under
duress or threat of blackmail . I almost hope so. To think he actually believes these ideas
is a terrifying possibility.
It is not polite to speak ill of the terminally ill. Yet this cruel, murderous and
thoroughly
despicable character poses a threat not just to the existence of the American nation, but
to the very lives of people all over the world.
I wish the Senator no harm. I only offer a desperate prayer in self-defense that his
retirement will be forthcoming and his media megaphone removed.
The political life not just of our country, but of the world, must be rid of this Man of
Blood , this sociopathic butcher -- who, shuffling to his grave, seems determined to drag
us all down with him.
Gee, you didn't even mention his actual collaboration with the actual enemy while a POW in
Hanoi.
Speaking of Germany, they held elections in Niedersachsen the other day, and more than a
few people were surprised to see a large influx of votes for the AfD (so-called
ultra-nationalists) come from immigrants who came to the country legally through the proper
channels aside from so-called Asylum or simply walking in.
Another interesting thing from Germany: The native-German Interior Minister suggests that
Islamic holidays be added to the legal holiday list, and the biggest critic of that turns out
to be the Turkish-descended leader of the Green Party.
Who can forget the humiliation suffered at the hands of this man by the patriotic and
courageous Chuck Hagel, when Mr. Hagel was nominated to be Secretary of Defence under Obama.
That a compromised and morally corrupt, traitorous individual can inflict such demeaning
treatment in the open on the MSM on an outstanding true American, such as Mr. Hagel, speaks
volumes about the state of affairs in the USA today. Thank you Mr. Kirkpatrick!
There's no doubt that the vast majority of Republican congressman utterly loathe their white
constituents and John McAmnesty is one of the worst if not the worst. They're on board with
white race replacement and support the spurious nationalism of Israel as well as the racial
chauvinism of every third world racial group within the United States while condemning white
nationalism.
John McCain especially champions the spurious nationalism of Israel and even lovingly
refers to it as a Jewish state while he insists that it's the U.S.'s destiny to "reinvent"
itself as a multiracial flophouse with no racial core and hothouse of anti-white racial
hatred.
Personally, I hope the evil SOB dies a miserable death whether of cancer or some other
cause. He would richly deserve it.
I didn't realize or had forgotten about McCain's unsavory interrogation of Hagel. A
guttersnipe performance is what one would expect from the good senator. A quick google search
once again proved this to be the case!
"We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil," he explained. "We are the custodians
of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad."
How can a land be made of ideals? Land is land. It is rock overlaid with soil. While rock
cannot sustain life, soil can. Soil is the decomposed bodies of all the living things that
have had their abode there. Culture, like soil is the substrate in which the individual is
rooted and from which he draws his sustenance.
It is impossible to think about "ideals" without at the same time invoking culture, the
sum total of inherited wisdom. Inherited wisdom is the fruit of a tree whose sap is the blood
of its forebears. The tree is rooted in soil made up of the figurative decomposed bodies of
its forebears. Ideals that are not rooted in blood and soil float in the air; they are
abstracted, removed and alien.
In his book "The Rebel", Camus drew a distinction between rebellion and revolution.
Observing that revolutions always devoured their own, Camus came to the conclusion that
whereas rebellion was a violent "pushing back" which defined a limit beyond which humans may
not proceed, revolution, based on pure "ideals" was restrained by no such limit. The
consequence of Revolution was a top-down tyranny which gave itself permission to remake
humankind according to its' "ideal" blueprint even if that meant reeducation, radical
reconditioning and ultimately murdering the poor subjects of the grand social experiment.
Revolutions, born in the realm of "ideals" always end in murder and tyranny. Rebellions
are more human affairs. Both the French and Russian revolutions ended in the slaughter of
thousands if not millions under the pretext of creating the perfected human race. Rebellions,
grounded in a man's personal feeling of having "had it up to here" are an act of defiance
that implicitly draws a line in the sand saying "Beyond this line you shall not go." and
"This far and no farther". We see the same limit-drawing in the defiance which the Alt Right
has shown in standing up to today's ruling demagogues. As long as those rebelling hold
themselves in their behavior to the same line or limit they have drawn, then the human race
develops its potentialities.
It is no surprise then that McCain, speaking on behalf of an alien, occupying government,
would espouse an ideal blueprint that undermines the solidarity of this nation's citizens and
which will, if history is any indication, likely result in the slaughter of millions of
us.
Now taking bets as to how long the senile old coot, Tokyo Rose McCain, can defy the reaper.
My guess is 9 months as he is on the best socialized medical plan on the planet .free
everything at Walter Reed in Bethesda. Hell, Cheney has been plugging along for years after
the elite medicos replaced his diseased ticker with an aquarium pump ..so there is no reason
Rose can't make it 9 more months with his mickey mouse brain tumor. Let's see .that would
make it July 18 but maybe the gods are in a playful mood so let's predict July 29, the
anniversary of the day a Rose afterburner prank set the USS Forrestal on fire, killing 134
sailors.
[Pick a single Handle and stick to it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments
may get trashed.]
We have doubled the national debt "fighting terrorism". Yet, corrupt Zio puppets like
McCain think the same 3rd world menace that we have spent decades bombing are " cured" of
their terrorist ways once they step on American soil? That is a a level of absolute ignorance
that shouldn't be tolerated.
In order to understand what the ruling class in America is all about, we need to examine 2 of
their most favorite phrases: 1. US is exceptional 2. We are all equal.
These are 2 mutually exclusive statements that only make sense if we identify whom exactly
are they referring to.
It's actually pretty simple. US has 2 classes. 1. Ruling elites 2. Proles
The statement that US are exceptional refers to their ruling elites. They are the ones
that are exceptional and irreplaceable. The statement about "all of us" being equal refers
clearly to the proles – as seen through the eyes of the ruling elites.
Proles are all equal from the perspective of the ruling elites. Not only are the proles
equal among themselves – they are equal to all the proles from all over the world. The
proof of this is – of course the uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world.
The domestic proles are not only equal to the ones from the 3rd world – they are
also replaceable by them. In order to make this point as clear as possible – the ruling
elites are not only replacing the domestic proles with 3rd world proles – they also
intend to equalize the standards of living between these 2 types of proles – and this
equalization is not working in favor of the domestic proles.
The declining standards of living for the domestic proles meet with the inclining
standards of living for the newly arrived 3rd world proles who are still possible to impress
with declining standards of living of the proles in US – considering that the places
where they come from are even worse off.
Those 2 magnanimous statements about: 1.US being exceptional and 2. We are all equal need
to be replaced with (as spoken through the lying, mendacious and hypocritical mouths of the
ruling elites):
1. We are exceptional (ruling elites) 2. YOU are all equal (all proles regardless of place
of origin). That should put some clarity into the phony generosity of the ruling elites with
which they "embrace" everybody as being "equal".
And it will take this terrible disease to rid the nation of this terrible man as the
voters of Arizona continued to put the traitor in office over far too many years.
Both this article and the comments reflect a segment of this country that has gone off the
rails. This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid
of any sense of decency.
McCain's a phony and anyone who thinks he's some kind of hero is either deluded or part of
the problem of this country being used and abused by certain actors to obtain power, wealth
and other people's land.
You can bet the house that Johnny Boy would never say "We are all Palestinians" anytime,
let alone when Israel is venting its impotence against its neighbors by carpet-bombing
Gaza.
To selectively advocate for freedom only for those who've donated huge amounts of money or
who your CFR or AIPAC overlords tell you to cheer on is not only craven, but treasonous, as
it gets the USA involved in endless war mongering and nation building.
In a way, McCain is the Harvey Weinstein of the USG, only he doesn't rape little girls,
but nations yearning to be free of Wall Street and a Zionist infested neoCON
government.
"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the
ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some
half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than
solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that
Americans consigned to the ash heap of history."
"This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid of
any sense of decency."
You've put the cart before the horse.
We are angry because we are people with a sense of decency who resent the arrogance of a
self-anointed, alien, occupying Elite by whose actions our standard of living is being
lowered.
There is no hatred more complete and no malevolence more fanatical than that held by the
American political class for the American people.
That's s a verity beyond question, and I might add, they no doubt feel the same about the
people everywhere. Albert J. Beveridge's 1898 "March of the Flag " is a must read since he's
quite open about how the ruling plutoligarchs viewed others and it rivals Cecil Rhodes'
"Confession of Faith" (1877).
What surprises me is that most 'Merkins seem so clueless about it and must be constantly
reminded when, in fact, the concept was well known to those who opposed the imposition of the
constitution on the peasant and prol class over 2 centuries ago.
Here are a few excerpts from "The Use of Coercion by the New Goverenment" (1788) that
illustrate the fact that early Americans were better informed than the clueless masses of
'Merkin fools of today. Note the date as well as how many points apply to the situation
today.
Read the said constitution [I] find that we are to receive but little good, and a great
deal of evil.
Aristocracy, or government in the hands of a very few nobles, or RICH MEN, is therein
concealed in the most artful wrote plan that ever was formed to entrap a free people. The
contrivers of it have so completely entrapped you, and laid their plans so sure and
secretly And in order to bring you into their snare, you may daily read new pieces
published in the newspapers, in favor of this new government; and should a writer
dare to publish any piece against it, he is immediately abused and vilified.
Look round you and observe well the RICH MEN, who are to be your only rulers, lords and
masters in future! Are they not all for it? Yes! Ought not this to put you on your guard?
Does not riches beget power, and power, oppression and tyranny?
Let me beg of you to reflect a moment on the danger you run. If you choose these men,
or others like them, they certainly will do everything in their power to adopt the new
government. Should they succeed, your liberty is gone forever; and you will then be
nothing better than a strong ass crouching down between two burdens.
-"A FARMER AND PLANTER" had his work printed in The Maryland Journal, and Baltimore
Advertiser, April 1, 1788.
When McPain talks about the vast merits of this country, surely he must be praising our
penchant for wars of imperialism. There is little for other countries to envy, the US has
gone to the dogs.
This detritic monster must have a radio device in his brain that tells him to utter such
lies with his special brand of contempt.
One aches to ask Senator McCain directly what "problem" he thinks will be more
effectively "solved" by importing the Third World. National security? Health care?
Collapsing wages? Rising inequality? Crumbling infrastructure?
None of the above. As Prof. MacDonald has clearly demonstrated, the truth is that The
Lobby was behind the push for importing the Thirld World.
Here's the source:
Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical
Review
Kevin MacDonald
California State University-Long Beach
This paper discusses Jewish involvement in shaping United States immigration policy. In
addition to a periodic interest in fostering the immigration of co-religionists as a result
of anti-Semitic movements, Jews have an interest in opposing the establishment of
ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies in which they resideas minorities. Jews
have been at the forefront in supporting movements aimed at altering the ethnic
status quo in the United States in favor of immigration of non-European peoples. These
activities have involved leadership in Congress, organizing and funding anti-restrictionist
groups composed of Jews and gentiles, and originating intellectual movements opposed to
evolutionary and biological perspectives in the social sciences.
An excerpt from p. 300:
A congruent opinion is expressed by prominent Jewish social scientist and political
activist Earl Raab' who remarks very positively on the success of revised American
immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965.
Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the
Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (1993a, p. 17), and he has
also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States
is that "(a)n increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even
more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop" (1995, p. 91).
Or more colorfully:
The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon
be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped
beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We
[i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about
half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of
our population tends to make it irreversible -- and makes our constitutional constraints
against bigotry more practical than ever (Raab, 1993b, p. 23).
Indeed, the "primary objective" of Jewish political activity after 1945 "was to
prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United
States" (Svonkin 1997,1998).
So, as the concluding sentence intimates, The Lobby had pushed for immigration reform for
over a hundred years because it wanted to ensure that pogroms would never occur in the New
World, like they did in the Old World.
As I've previously stated, what we witnessed in Charlottsville, VA is the last spasms of
an organism that has been attacked by the "Diversity Is Our Strength" virus, implanted by The
Lobby. But, as I keep reminding people, the tremendous success of The Lobby may be sowing the
seeds of its own demise, as it will inevitably succumb to hubristic forces and keep reaching
for more and more – e.g., the anti-BDS law that could fine Americans for up to $1M and
imprison them for up to 20 yrs if they support BDS. These types of actions will convince more
and more Americans that The Lobby is working against their interests and a day of reckoning
will come.
To avert this scenario from unfolding, my consistent advice has been for the Jewish
community to take notice of these risks and to work to curb the influence of their powerful
lobbies. These lobbies must immediately cease and desist from pursuing their nefarious
objectives – both domestic (diversity is our strength) and foreign (the phony GWOT that
has drained gallons of blood and trillions of dollars to enhance the security of the villa in
the jungle) – that are inimical to the interests of the American people.
Don't believe me? Here's what Prof. MacDonald predicts the future holds if things continue
on the same path they're currently on:
CONCLUSION
The defeats of 1924 and 1952 did not prevent the ultimate victory of the Jewish interest
in combating the cultural, political, and demographic dominance of the European-derived
peoples of the United States. What is truly remarkable is the tenacity with which Jewish
ethnic interests were pursued for a period of close to 100 years. Also remarkable was the
ability to frame the argument of immigration-restrictionists in terms of racial superiority
in the period from 1924-1965 rather than in such positive terms as the ethnic interests of
the peoples of northern and western Europe in main- taining a status quo as of 1924.
During the period between 1924 and 1965 Jewish interests were largely thwarted, but this
did not prevent the ultimate triumph of the Jewish perspective on immigration.
Although the success of the anti-restrictionist effort is an indication that people can
be induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such altruism will continue
to occur if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of the
European-derived group is decreasing while the power of other groups increases as a result
of immigration and other social policies. The prediction, both on common sense grounds
and on the basis of psychological research on social identity process (e.g., Hogg &
Abrams, 1987) , is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a
multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become
increasingly unified and that contemporary divisive influences among the European-derived
peoples of the United States (e.g., issues related to gender and sexual orientation; social
class differences; religious differences) will be increasingly perceived as unimportant.
Eventually these groups will develop greater cohesion and a sense of common interest in
their interactions with the other ethnic groups with profound consequences on the future
history of America and the West.
Note to authors.: If you intend to have something published, please research the topic
first. You tainted a perfectly fine article with your comment on the military. What we have
is an abomination, and McCain itself makes, and has made use of, the monstrosity for his own
evil ends.
Both this article and the comments reflect a segment of this country that has gone off
the rails.
I got news for ya. The country went off the rails in 1788.
This is trash and nothing more than resentful low life expressing their anger, devoid of
any sense of decency.
Actually your comment is trash. Petulant trash to be more precise. People are expressing
their anger because of the despicable McCain's total lack of decency.
Please re-read the article. McCain is the indecent trash and he does evoke anger. Hell,
rage against that horrid pile of swine scat is justified too, I think.
If he spends eternity simmering in a cauldron of fetid pig body fluids mixed with molten
gold, a punishment similar to those mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, I wouldn't shed any
tears. It would be deserved and appropriate.
Speaking of McStain and the military, not only did the scumster itself betray its fellows,
but it was excreted by a military family.
Let's look a bit more at what "Brutus" had to say about standing armies what it
attracts
an army will afford a decent support, and agreeable employment to the young men of many
families, who are too indolent to follow occupations that will require care and industry,
and too poor to live without doing any business, we can have little reason to doubt but
that we shall have a large standing army as soon as this government can find money to pay
them, and perhaps sooner.
McCain caused the explosion and fire on the USS FORRESTAL that took the lives of 134 men and
wounded 161 as a result of a wet start prank with his jet and a coverup of the incident took
place as his father was in command of the navy.
McCain also made over 30 tapes for North Vietnam condemning the U.S. and he gave
information on bombing runs that led to American planes being shot down. McCain gave so much
info to the North that he was label by them as the SONGBIRD.
McCain has a filthy mouth as is evident in videos of him on you tube cursing out various
people and especially when asked about his covering up the fact that POWS were left behind in
North Vietnam.
McCain was in on supporting ISIS aka AL CIADA and was pictured with ISIS leaders in Syria
and was an important part in supplying ISIS.
McCain is a absolute fraud and a traitor and a liar.
In short, " the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century" is FUBAR,
and yes, our nation is a mix of blood and soil. Mostly the blood of Christians of European
descent, and the soil consecrated by the incredible sacrifices of the latter to win it and
cultivate it.
The providential role of America was to be a great tellurocratic continental power
stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and to the Gulf of Mexico and to provide a home
for those Christian Europeans eager to avoid the petty dynastic quarrels and internecine
squabbles of Europe. It was never intended to be a dumping ground for the world's refuse nor
an international gendarme.
Unfortunately, the demonic spiritual ancestors of the likes of McCain decided to make the
republic an empire and set their sights upon the Caribbean and the Philippines and the rest
is history. America's blundering into world affairs has been nothing but disastrous, and has
led to the outright destruction of the European homeland's culture, and now a near extinction
of its people.
McCain is a warmongering idiot and a major war criminal who will never face human justice
but who should prepare himself for Divine justice by spending his last years or months on
earth in a monastic cell doing penance.
This reflects the current fight within the US hegemonist camp: who to destroy first, Putin or
the EU. Mr Kirkpatrick's extraordinary fury probably stems from the fact that Mc Cain has
exposed that split in the public arena. McCain sees Putin as having become a far greater
threat to US hegemony than the EU, so he wants to put destroying the EU on the back burner
until the more immediate threat of Putin is removed. Clearly, Mr Kirkpatrick is on the other
side of that argument. He wants to stick to the original plan of using Putin to destroy the
EU and then turning on Putin. The argument about intervention or non-intervention is indeed
"spurious" and "half-baked". The "non-intervention" argument was concocted in haste after
Putin had departed from the US hegemonist "script" by annexing Crimea and has never been more
than a pretext for letting Putin win in Ukraine, which Mr Kirkpatrick goes out of his way to
mention, so that he can get on with the job the US hegemonists have given him of breaking up
the EU. Thus, the reason why the "nationalism" preached by the Breitbart/VDare camp sounds
spurious and half-baked is precisely because it is. Indeed, Mr Kirkpatrick betrays himself by
his comments about Germany. A "non-interventionist" wouldn't care a hoot about what happens
in Germany, on way or the other, and a person on the right of the political spectrum
certainly wouldn't declare a communist dictatorship to be "more free" than a democracy.
People like Mr Kirkpatrick piously preach the rights of white Americans but , we white
Europeans, and we are, after all, the "original" whites, are to have our media manipulated
and our elections and referenda rigged so as to prevent us exercising the national
sovereignty which the same Americans are urging upon us in a way which does not serve the
cause of US global hegemony. That may or may not be spurious and half-baked but it certainly
can't be called "non-intervention"!
McCain legacy in Ukraine: "Ukraine has a Nazi problem " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/406991-western-media-ukraine-nazi/
"On Saturday night, up to 20,000 far-right radicals honored the 75th anniversary of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – a paramilitary group led by Stepan Bandera, which
actively collaborated with Hitler's Germany. The leaders of the procession included Oleg
Tyahnybok, an associate of US Senators John McCain " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/406991-western-media-ukraine-nazi/
What a family! – the panderers to ziocons (USSLiberty tragedy) and the associates of
neo-Nazis (Ukrainian tragedy).
John McCain was a disaster from day one. He graduated near the bottom of his class at
Annapolis, did an aircraft "hot start" as a "stunt" which killed a number of Navy crewmen,
personally crashed 3 aircraft, and was never punished for it. You see, McCain's daddy was an
admiral who protected "sonny boy" from repercussions for his stupidity.
Captured in North Vietnam, he turned out to be one of the most prolific "stoolies" which
caused untold suffering for his fellow POWs. His POW nickname was "songbird". You can be sure
that he "tweeted" a lot in order to procure preferential treatment for himself.
Fast forward to the "savings and loan" scandal, in which McCain was a principle player. Of
course, his POW "status" got him out of that one. McCain is a Democrat masquerading as a
Republican. He should have been put "out to pasture" a long time ago . . .
Both John McCain (R-Tel Aviv) and John Kerry (D-Tel Aviv) should be put out to pasture. .
. It is no secret that only HALF of our verified Vietnam War POW's were released to us. The
North Vietnamese "held back" HALF of our POWs in anticipation of receiving "war reparations"
(which never materialized).
Most people are unaware that both of these cretins cut off the search for POWs in
Southeast Asia at a time when there were STILL verified sightings of Americans held in
captivity. These sightings took place by satellite imaging ("circle-K") as well as being
verified by various "boots on the ground". McCain and Kerry consigned these brave men to
their suffering deaths. . . So much for "leaving no one behind". . .
by spending his last years or months on earth in a monastic cell doing penance.
I have a suggestion; Abu Ghraib. In a radioactive cell with Hillary and Netan-yahoooo.
How about subjecting these pustulent vermin to an occasional dose of napalm and WP when
they're feeling uppity, and a refreshing shower of Agent Orange now and then? As a
consolation, they can sleep on mattresses stuffed with money.
McCain and Biden are indeed indentical in one key respect.
Both are bought and paid for and always do the bidding of their masters. For McCain, he's
a servant of the Merchants of Death. Or to use their more offical but oxymoronic name, the
'defense contractors.' Biden was once known as the Senator from MasterCard, and Obama picked
him to signal to Obama's banker backers that they'd have their old friend in the White House
alongside Obama.
Thus, neither really represents a personal idealogy. Both simply do whatever the people
who own them tell them to do, and then spout a lot of nonsense that sound like personal
beliefs. But any of those statement will change or be discarded when their owners decide they
want something different. And in between, limited and meaningless statements of what they
think their voters want to hear during campaigns.
The Senator from Boeing and the Senator from MasterCard. A perfect pair.
the Bloodstain will rightly check out of this world the most hated and despised man in
American history
Benedict Arnold or John Wayne Gacy or Jerry Sandusky are all notorious for their evil
deeds, but John McCain, by shear weight of the incomprehensible human suffering and horrors
he's personally responsible for, will surely go down in history as the most execrable human
being to ever defile our nation.
when Gacy breathed his last feculent breath, it was a cause of celebration to all whose
lives he touched
and similarly, hundreds of millions.. indeed; billions of people the world over-
from Russia to the Middle East to America's heartland- will all quietly celebrate in our
hearts, as a united family of humanity, when that evil little man finally goes to meet his
reward in hell.
I sort of wonder if that's why they kept Ariel Sharon on life support for so long, so as
to cheat us all of the quiet celebration we were all entitled to when that toad finally
checked out.
Please Bloodstain, don't linger in that way. Give us all a what we're entitled to! what we
long for..
You are/were, hand's down, the most loathsome human being on the planet during your entire
murderous and treasonous career, at least try at least in some small way, to make up for it
by giving us all, the entire populace of planet Earth, a united cause to celebrate, at least
for one glorious moment!
re: The sacrifice of our military is framed as "leadership."
"Fallen" (dead) soldiers are the sacrificial lambs which sanctify the government's leaders.
It's the blood of the lamb, or the Aztec sacrifices, whatever one's religion, which make the
government's policy holy and right. Religious power correlates wonderfully with government
power, and each promotes the other.
Is it your dedication to zionism or is it your neo-Nazi Ukrainian patriotism that made you
an admirer of the "Tokyo Rose?" McCain is a big friend of both Israel and neo-Nazis; no
conflict here. See also the Jewish citizen Kolomojsky, famous for his financing the neo-Nazi
battalion Azov.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called McCain "A hero. A fighter. A friend." Who
needs another recommendation when Bibi approves McCain? https://www.timesofisrael.com/4-times-john-mccain-went-maverick-with-jewish-friends/
Yes, "non-interventionists" who are race-realists and white advocates, immigration
restrictionists who support and want to conserve what is left of West Civilization in North
America, Australia, and Europe, a civilization that was created and can only be sustained by
Europeans, shouldn't care about the ruination of Germany, France, the UK, Sweden, Belgium,
etc. by Muslims, black Africans, and Somalis who are black and Muslim. They shouldn't care
about Muslim terrorism, about the sexual assaults of hundreds of women and girls in Cologne
and other German cities by Muslim savages and predators and misogynists; about the abduction,
enslavement, torture, and gang-rapes of girls as young as 10 and 11 in Rotherham by Muslim
immigrants from Pakistan; about Arab and Somali Muslims committing over 95% of rapes in
Sweden; about virtually all the nations of Western Europe being transformed into Muslim and
black African-majority hell-holes and dystopias.
This article skirts around the fact that McCain sold himself out to a racist-supremacist,
mideast sect that abuses Americans decades ago. His whole political career has been based on
being a lackey of a corrupt foreign mafia that ponied up "funds" to get him re-elected
whenever a real American posed a threat to the sect's lackey.
google( John McCain; A Closer Look at Evil (Part 2) )
The political genealogy of Arizona Senator John McCain is firmly rooted in organized crime.
Gus Greenbaum, an influential mobster, was close to Meyer Lansky in New York .
google( John McCain; A Closer Look at Evil (Part 4) )
The career of John McCain offers a textbook case confirming how war is waged on the U.S. by
way of deception -- with the help of senior lawmakers. Despite the constancy of his
treasonous conduct, .
Lets remember that as a lackey of the sect, McCain helped introduce the "campaign reform"
that facilitated buying of American elections by the sect with this kind of perversion.
google( How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties counterpunch
)
I'm sorry if I don't agree with the OP author's contention that the FFofA wouldn't recognize
McCain's remarks. Half of the FFofA were Masons or fellow travellers of Masonry like Tom
Paine. George Washington was a Mason as were all of his generals under him. America is the
first Masonic Republic, look at the Seal of the US and the two slogans, "Novus Ordo" and "E
pluribus unum" -- very Masonic sentiments, ideas. The only 'dogma' of Masonry is the
Brotherhood of Man–the rebuilding of the Tower of Babel. McCain is only espousing true
Masonic ideas and values. Masonry calls race those "accidental divisions of mankind". Not all
of America is onboard with Masonry, but much of the Elite, especially the Establisment Swamp
IS Masonic at its core. Masonry is an American tradition.
Masonry is an evil ideology and McCain is only a practitioner of it.
Service members and their families live for free on base. People living off base are given a
stipend to cover their housing costs. They shop in commissaries and post exchanges where
prices for food and basic goods are considerably lower than at civilian stores. Troops and
their families count on high-quality education and responsive universal health care. They
expect to be safe at home, as bases, on average, have less violence than American cities of
comparable size. And residents enjoy a wide range of amenities -- not just restaurants and
movie theaters but fishing ponds, camp sites, and golf courses built for their use.
Of course, some bases are better than others. But even the most austere provides a
comprehensive network of social welfare provisions and a safety net that does not
differentiate between a junior employee and an executive.
According to a 2012 study by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC) the risk to
ones life is lower for
soldiers than for civilians:
In the past two decades ( which include two periods of intense combat operations ), the crude
overall mortality rate among U.S. service members was 71.5 per 100,000 [person-years] . In
2005, in the general U.S. population, the crude overall mortality rate among 15-44 year olds
was 127.5 per 100,000 p-yrs
The huge difference is quite astonishing. The death rate for soldiers would still have been
lower than for civilians if the U.S. had started another medium size war:
If the age-specific mortality rates that affected the U.S. general population in 2005 had
affected the respective age-groups of active component military members throughout the period
of interest for this report, there would have been approximately 13,198 (53%) more deaths
among military members overall.
Those working in the U.S. military, even when the U.S. is at war, have a quite pampered life
with lots of benefits. They have less risk to their lives than their civilian peers. But when
some soldier dies by chance, the announcements speak of "sacrifice". The fishermen, transport
and construction workers, who have the highest occupational death rates , don't get solemn
obituaries and pompous
burials .
There may be occasions where soldiers behave heroic and die for some good cause. But those
are rather rare incidents. The reports thereof are at times manipulated for
propaganda purposes.
The U.S. military spends more than a billion per year on advertisement. It spends
many uncounted millions on hidden information operations. These are not designed to influence
an enemy but the people of the United States. In recent years the U.S. military and
intelligence services have
scripted or actively influenced 1,800 Hollywood and TV productions. Many of the top-rated
movie scripts pass through a military censorship office which decides how much 'production
assistance' the Department of Defense will provide for the flick.
A rather schizophrenic aspect of its safe life is the military's fear. Despite being cared
for and secure, the soldiers seem to be a bunch of scaredy-cats. The military's angst is very
ambiguous. It meanders from issue to issue. This at least to various headlines:
Members of the U.S. military live quite well. They are safe. Their propaganda depicts them
as heroes. At the same time we are told that they are a bunch of woosies who fear about
anything one can think of.
I find that a strange contradiction.
/snark
Posted by b on October 19, 2017 at 12:32 PM | Permalink
The US military.... losing wars since 1946 [unless you count Panama and/or Grenada]... But in
fairness it was tasked with wars that were, by their nature, unwinnable wars. One of the
'grand lessons' of the 20th and 21st centuries is that empires will [almost] always lose
wars. The American Empire will lose wars until it runs out of money and then it will quit.
All the US needs is a border patrol and a coast guard. All the rest is imperial impedimenta.
Please don't confuse the fears of a lowly enlisted guy, like I used to be, with the published
"fears" intended only to extract moar taxpayer dollars....
Honestly, the military exists to respond to "threats", and that entails identifying those
threats. The impact of volcano eruptions on jet planes is very real, to give one example, so
it is rational to develop options when you cannot use such planes. And so on. I should read
"The Airforce 4 biggest fears", just beforehand, I would guess budget cuts are number one.
But expenditures imposed by morons in Congress should also be considered. That makes me
curious what is number 3 and number 4.
"Members of the U.S. military live quite well. They are safe. Their propaganda depicts them
as heroes."
Not quite as good as depicted b, but, none the less, quite better than the average workers
in the U$A today.
IMO, the true heroes in the U$A today are the many workers who struggle daily on minimum
wage, to provide for their family's welfare with no job security, and no health care..
b, did you get some kick back for this promotional ad for the us armed forces? i hope so!
@6 stryker. i always get a kick out of when it is referred to as 'america' as if the usa
is as big as many in the country think it is! meanwhile us lowly others who inhabit the
'americas' don't get much of a mention...
Even though I have a brother in the Navy who joined because of the shit economy, let me play
on the devil's side here, even though I gemerally agree with you.
Ideally, these types of benefits would be welcomed by any country who were legitimately
proud of their military. It just so happens that the military we are talking about here is
the empire's world police. It really ISN'T the US military any longer, although it takes our
cash this way and that for "defense" spending. Although down the list when it comes to
defense spending as a per centage of GDP, the US still spends wayyyyyyyy too much. So we are
altogether looking at a weird-ass example, b, and although you may be right when it comes to
the pussification of our military, I look at it differently for two reasons: 1) as stated
above, the US military is unique in their role for the empire; this has created the immense
problem of explaining or warranting their existence in faraway lands for almost no
discernible reasons. A scattered and bungling approach, meanwhile being stretched way too
far, means certain morale and training issues; and 2) it is also a generational thing which
ties into the shit economy run by technocratic elites who don't give one iota of a care for
the lesser classes which they have massacred through globalization.
So while I think you are in the right to help deconstruct the myth of American military
might, I would argue that it is a moot point really and the table is already set for the
whole MIC pertaining to US spending to come crashing down once the economy goes tits up.
After that, god only knows if militaries will even be useful. In the end, it is difficult for
an American like myself to really see the purpose of a military adventure force due to our
geographical location. OTOH, a soldier in India looking out from his post over Kashmir might
know exactly his worth now and for the future.
"the crude overall mortality rate among U.S. service members was 71.5 per 100,000
[person-years]. In 2005, in the general U.S. population, the crude overall mortality rate
among 15-44 year olds was 127.5 per 100,000 p-yrs"
Roughly two-thirds of all DOD active-duty military personnel were ages 30 or younger in
2015. Only about one-in-ten (9%) were older than 40.*
Compared to**:
15 to 19 years 20,219,890 7.2
20 to 24 years 18,964,001 6.7
25 to 34 years 39,891,724 14.2
35 to 44 years 45,148,527 16.0
So, the disproportionality of the age groups in the cited example would more than account
for mortality.
Additionally, massive injuries including dismemberment, permanent brain damage and
paralysis are not accounted for. That misrepresentation goes further than the general reader
is aware, battlefield casualties that were once fatal are now, though initial response, being
treated and the Soldier/Marine returned to society.***
#7 - I agree, the pay for enlisted soldiers is low and VA healthcare doesn't want to treat
many chemical issues soldiers get from being around depleted uranium, toxic burn pits, etc.
Still, it's a much better life than those bombed by them experience!
The intellectual quality of the Outlaw US Empire's military serfs is reflected in their
inability to see that the government they're in service to is the #1 Domestic threat
to the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect, with the so-called Deep State tied to
it like a shadow.
A 1st Lieutenant over 3 years makes $4,682 base pay. Thats $30 per hour on average. That is
well above most civilian pay. Then many businesses hand them a 10-15% discount.
A Sergeant over 3 5 years makes $2,725 base pay. That's about $17.50 per hour... Not so
bad.
Then the get BAS (Meals) $246 for Officers and $347 for enlisted. BAH (Housing) $1291 per
month Enlisted. They're hiding the Officers amount.
Then kick in free medical. No Obamacare for them!
And God only know the pension they get after 20 or 30 years. I knew a person receiving a
military pension and a Post Office pension. The Post Office is very partial to military and
dependents. Almost impossible to work for them full time as a civilian. My wife went to take
the 'test' and was told she didn't stand a chance as there were too many military retirees
vying for the job.
When I went in the Military in 1967 I made $78 per month. When I got out in 1978 I made
$700 per month.
All government workers including military on average make more then civilian
counterparts.
What's maddening is when I hear them poor boy everyone. Calling, wanting money for the
military or cops.
Aha! A hint of how the pampered rapists were left exposed in Niger. According to that bastion
of oppression, truth and the amerikan way, Foreign Policy DOT com, the government of Chad is
somewhat discomfited by the
inclusion of Chad on the most recent iteration of Trump's 'Muslim Ban' list. Hah, Chad is
pissed at the latest moronity from Agent Orange eh, at least they have a coupla followers of
Islam there, imagine how the population of Venezuela feel since last time anyone looked those
Venezuelans who still bought into old wives' tales were prostrating themselves in front of
two chunks of wood attached in two dimensional perpendicularity I.E. a cruciform.
Still Chad is pissed and you can hardly blame 'em as for more than 60 years the Chad army
has performed vital step & fetchit roles for advancing amerikan and french imperial
interests - raping and looting villages from Maghreb to the Sahel, from Nigeria through to
Mali whenever it seemed the innate right of amerika to plunder whatever pleases them was
being questioned.
From assorted tidbits on offer from the usual corrupt sources, we are told that the band
of butchers were visiting a village in Niger to provide a 'pep talk' on anti-terror. when
they were attacked by as yet unnamed terrorists; apart from the notion that any group of
indigenous persons who attack a gang of armed foreign invaders could ever be called
terrorists there is a further irony - the pentagon also asserts that there was no indication
of prior 'terrorist activity' in the area where the village was located. If that is correct
WTF were amerikan troops going there to provide 'anti-terrorist' information for?
This previously pristine region suddenly filled with alleged 'terrorists' who then
proceeded to lay waste to the squad of imperial invaders. Since we know now that this was
right after Chad's government, pissed at their inclusion on 'The List' , pulled its
mercenary forces out of Niger, it would be fair to surmise that it was they, the Chad gang,
who had been keeping the world safe for global exploitation in Niger, but that DC, not
wishing to acknowledge the 'muslim ban' had caused such a major screw up, chose to ignore
that reality and continued to send it's thugs out to 'disseminate information'.
"This wasn't in the brochure" whined one enabler of empire as he choked out his final
words.
The USA's armed forces are deadly. We may mock them and while it is true, they don't "win"
wars. However the damage they wreak is horrendous, the Armed Forces when unleashed will cause
more damage than the mongols. People seem to forget the wars the USA did "win". It's wiped
it's ass with the Dominican Republic and Haiti many times. Africa, Asia and Europe suffers
under the boot of the G.I.
They don't win, but they don't really "lose" either.
I was trying to figure out the purpose of this article. Since the author didn't list the
downsides of serving in the military, I will assume the author has never actually served in
the military. My suggestion would be for the author to join as soon as possible to gain
access to that great military life and all those fantasic benefits. And since the author
believes they are a force of wussies and scaredy-cats, the author should not have any
problems getting in. Of course, after the author has spent his third tour humping the boonies
in Afghanistan, survived his umpteenth road-side bomb or small arms ambush, should be
interesting to see if he turns into a 20 year man so he can fully enjoy the good life.
The article was too one-sided, shallow and exaggerated to be written by anyone but a
troll. Waste of time to read it.
Game over in Syria. After tripartite talks (Syria, Kurds, Russia) at al Qamishli over the
Kurdish issue and the US bases in Syria, the Kurds have transferred control of the large
Conoco oil facility to Russian ground forces. The Kurds now have no control of oil for
financing the so-called 'state'. It looks like they have seen the US casting the Iragi Kurds
aside and wondered - 'will the same happen to us?' and gone for the negotiated solution. No
wonder Shoigu and Putin have gone on record as saying the Syria issue is nearly over.
I wonder if you included suicides or disability post service. WWI the military introduced
metal helmets and mortality went down but brain injuries increased. My understanding is that
brain injuries due to IED are very common. I would imagine the majority of soldiers returning
from a war zone come home maimed in body/and or mind.
As the son of a 20+ year Army vet, I know these perks have been there for a long time. They
were necessary to attract anybody before WW2. I imagine they have increased with the
volunteer military. Mostly the Army is populated with the more competent people from the
lower strata of American society. They have a choice of working at a fast food, convenience
store, or motel along the interstate - or the Army - oh yeah being a prison guard is also an
option as the burgeoning American prison population is housed in low income rural areas.
I imagine there is bloat in the officer corps - most of those golf courses you mentioned are
for officers only. These officers are mainly not coming from low income families. The real
bloat though, is in the military contractors - Eisenhower's military-industrial complex with
an added national security complex. Amazing how the US has gone from being basically
isolationist before WW2 to the militaristic society of today. The US military is the bitch
enforcer for global elite. The police are being increasingly militarized. Many of them
trained by those human rights paragons - the Israelis.
Amazing how the US has gone from being basically isolationist before WW2 to the
militaristic society of today.
Posted by: gepay | Oct 19, 2017 5:01:41 PM | 30
LOL Seriously?
This is only a partial list of US military actions in foreign countries. This list only
covers the 50 years from 1890 to WW2
---------------
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened canal
1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
TEXAS 1915 Troops Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
MEXICO 1923 Bombing
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
-------------
You know, I hear they have this new-fangled thing call "The Internet" now.
The hipster kids tell me you can actually connect to it and do things like research a
statement before you go and say something stupid.
Can't make head nor tail of it myself, but the local hipster voung 'uns swear by it
In terms of the most dangerous occupations b seemed to have omitted loggers. From life
insurance data published about 30 years ago the most dangerous occupations are (number of
deaths per 100,000):
commercial fishermen (about 100)
loggers (70-80)
construction workers (20+)
taxi drivers and 24 hour store clerks (~10)
fire fighters (5)
policemen (4)
With policemen the leading cause of occupational fatalities are from traffic accidents.
Every time, any where in the US if a cop is shot by a criminal it becomes front page news
across the entire country and their funerals are attended by hundreds of uniformed cops to
great press fanfare. This is followed by outpouring of press discussion about the horrible
dangers our policemen are exposed to.
If you look at battlefield injuries, the picture is not so good; in the Iraq occupation,
injuries were often debilitating but not fatal. One also has to worry about being poisoned by
burn pits or uranium. The military people who are truly pampered, with a royal lifestyle, are
the generals.
Another American group that receives special privileges is the police. Have you heard of
the law enforcement bill of rights?
This military socialism resembles Israeli socialism. A technique the Israeli state uses to
grant benefits to Israeli Jews and deny them to Palestinians is to tie the benefits to
military service which is denied to Palestinians. As a result, Israeli Palestinians pay more
taxes but receive less benefits then Israeli Jews.
This military socialism resembles Israeli socialism. A technique the Israeli state uses
to grant benefits to Israeli Jews and deny them to Palestinians is to tie the benefits to
military service which is denied to Palestinians. As a result, Israeli Palestinians pay more
taxes but receive less benefits then Israeli Jews.
Posted by: Edward | Oct 19, 2017 5:41:16 PM | 33
Nationalist and Socialist?
A bit of a mouthful, maybe someone should come up with a snappy acronym for it. . . .
"b" You just way out of your way to beat up the military. SO. The reason the "mortality rate"
is so much lower is because better than 98% of us are not only armed, but are private fire
arms owners at our homes and the criminal world knows that BUT YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO
IGNORE THAT! YOU "b" just took your credibility off the cliff, complete with a "snark" all
the way to the rocks below. Yes, I served on SECARMY Staff in the E Ring at the Pentagon. So,
"been there" all the way to the end. Deployments, sand, live fire convoys and all.
Every dozen or whatever months I get this spam phone call from this big booming American
voice asking me if I would be good enough to contribute to a charity for medical care and/or
support of the loved ones of police officers slain or injured while on duty. It's pretty much
sort of a shake down, since they do have my number.
This pisses me way off!
So I politely explain to them that my cat, Curly, has severe epilepsy and I must spend
$2,000 a month for this Vimpat medicine to keep Curly from having dreadful seizures. So of
course I have no leftover money for charity.
Screw them!
<== Jagger | Oct 19, 2017 4:43:46 PM | 28
Yup. Don't waste any more time reading this. (You didn't read the fine print on your auto
insurance either, did you?)
One day when the dollar fails and is no longer the petro dollar, then the military cuts will
happen like the old USSR. This may be sooner than later after how Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia,
Hezbollah and others stuck together in Syria and now Iraq.
This has scared the shit out of the Saudis. The Saudi king ran to Russia to meet with
Putin. The petrodollars days are numbered.
all those innocent people, not to mentioned the armed forces people being exposed to depleted
uranium, and none of them are a statistic.. thank you barbaric usa..anyone who thinks the usa
looks after their vets- i don't think so...
One only need view the film Born on the Fourth of July to learn how vets were
treated then and now. My partner's dad has a host of ailments, PTSD amongst them, and ought
to be in a VA Nursing Home, but they are almost nonexistent nowadays--they were once called
Old Soldiers Homes.
At what point does a military become mercenaries, out for their own good? Who has
incentive to make them mercenaries? How can we tell when a military has been compromised? How
can society guard against the slippery slope? Etc.
United States of America = Americans?
In Europe, none of the countries are called Europe and the people collectivly are called
Eropeans.
In Asia, no country has the name Asia, but collectivly the people are called Asians.
In Africa, South Africa has Africa in its name, and the people of South Africa a called South
africans. Easy to say and people who live in Africa a collectively Africans.
The Americas. Only one country has America in its name, but who the fuck is going to say
"United States of Americans" when refering to the arseholes that inhabit the place. Much
easier to just say Americans, Canadians, Venezuelans - whatever.
How do the life expectancies of adult an adult 'A', 'B', or 'C' compare? Who is most likely
to be murdered soonest by Heine gang? Hard to know...most A's are off the map, shut off from
any large scale publicity or commerce or media coverage. While the status of 'B' and 'C' is
secret. Heine gang shortens the life expectancy of all in a significant way, but I don't know
how the current stats would play out.
The nonsense has started again. I have posted the same epistle twice and both times the
missive has disappeared into the black hole, I shan't do it again until I'm certain the
original has gone forever -in the meantime no one should be surprised if they both suddenly
reappear.
OK. give the reprobate Donald credit (maybe)...he was quoted in saying to the dead soldier's
mum: "It's what he signed up for...",blah,blah. But, the Donald called it: Special Forces are
nothing but trained assassination teams...they go in, off their target, fly out, end of
story. Only this time, the buggers got caught with their shorts down, and...casualties...oh,
boo-hoo. All these young bodies that sign up for the US military some time in their
enlistment will be posted to "bases" that they didn't even realise existed. And so they get
educated, really fast. Then those who go further in their military careers decide to go for
the "elite" units: hard-core training, propaganda, "know your enemy",how to murder
stealthily, etc. Then, after many "kills", they themselves get capped...it's how the game is
played, yo. So, bottom-line - Trump let out the BIG secret: "We" kill, and should expect to
be killed in return...who can cavil with that?
@42 Jackrabbit,
This is hugely important. Ditching the draft in the '70's wasn't for any altruistic reason,
nor to make the US military "more professional." In draft days, even though most wealthy
families could buy their way out of being impacted, a significant cross section of the
citizenry could expect to find themselves contributing their pride and joy to some crazy war
effort in some far off place. There had better be a damn good reason for it. One of the big
lessons the Establishment learned from Vietnam was that even the terminally passive American
people could become violently anti-war when it was a life or death situation for them
personally. So the move was made to an "all volunteer" force, which would generally draw from
a less politically powerful cross section, and there would automatically be less bitching
because "those guys wanted to go fight--that's what they signed up for." And as Jackrabbit
points out, haven't indeed you at least started down the road to mercenary when your current
army must admit they're there for the money, and maybe the promise of adventure, not because
they were drafted and just fulfilling their duty as a citizen and eager to get home to the
plow?
This is doubly troubling, because now your soldiers are vastly more mercenary than before
(and of course will be recruited as true mercenaries upon ETS to meet the growing demand for
true mercs), but are fewer and more socially isolated, so they are getting 3, 4, MORE tours
in some sand pit where they are basically a walking target and are rightly hated as foreign
occupiers, so even the best of them cannot help but become resentful and sociopathic. But at
the same time, the Deep State has divorced the military from the citizenry at large, so
citizens care less and less how many wars the US is engaged in, how many destroyed young men
come home, and not only does protest of wars evaporate, warfare is mythically transformed
into something heroic and to be desired, not feared. All empires have gradually been forced
to employ more and more mercenaries (or slaves) to maintain their wars, but it never ends
well.
"... The Senator from Arizona represents something relatively new on the American scene: the emerging class of colonial administrators, Pentagon contractors, and high-ranking military personnel, and their families, many of them stationed overseas. These people have a material interest in the expansion of our role as global cop, they number in the tens of thousands, and they are strategically placed in the social order, with enough social power to constitute an influential lobby. ..."
"... As the prototype of this mutant species of Homo Americanus , McCain is the perfect enemy of the new nationalism that handed the White House to Donald Trump and sundered the Brits from the EU. It's no surprise he's become the antipode of the Trumpian "America First" foreign policy doctrine – a doctrine that is almost never implemented, but that's another column. His latest philippic perfectly summarizes the spirit and content of the brazen imperialism that is his credo and the credo of his class, We get the whole grand tour of McCainism as a worldview, from the rather odd idea that "America is an idea" and not an actual place to the glories of the "international order." There is much shedding of blood "to make a better world" – a cause we are told has "made our own civilization more just, freer, more accomplished and prosperous than the America that existed when I watched my father go off to war on December 7, 1941." Now here is crackpot Keynesianism with a vengeance: the destruction of World War II was good for the economy! ..."
"... Having "liberated" the world from itself, the United States, as the champion of World Order, is in danger of turning away from its sacred duty to always be shedding lots and lots of blood on behalf of Others. And we know just who McCain is talking about: ..."
Some people are living symbols, sheer embodiments of a concept that fits their persona as
snugly as their skin: e.g. the Dalai Lama personifies Contemplative Piety, Harvey Weinstein is
the incarnation of Brazen Vulgarity, and John McCain's very person exudes the sweaty blustery
spirit of Empire. His entire history – born in the Panama Canal zone, son of an admiral,
third-generation centurion, the War Party's senatorial spokesman – made it nearly
impossible for him to be other than what he is: the country's most outspoken warmonger and
dedicated internationalist.
As George Orwell remarked, "After forty, everyone has the face they deserve," and in
McCain's case this is doubly true. That Roman head, fit for a coin of high denomination, looks
as if it might sprout a crown of laurel leaves at any moment: Grizzled brow, wrinkled with the
tension of an inborn belligerence, eyes alight with a perpetual flame of self-righteous anger,
McCain is Teddy Roosevelt impersonating Cato the Elder. In the extreme predictability of his
warlike effusions, he's become a bit of a cartoon character. Who can forget his enthusiastic
rendition of " Bomb bomb
bomb Iran! " to the tune of "Barbara Ann"?
The Senator from Arizona represents something relatively new on the American scene: the
emerging class of colonial administrators, Pentagon contractors, and high-ranking military
personnel, and their families, many of them stationed overseas. These people have a material
interest in the expansion of our role as global cop, they number in the tens of thousands, and
they are strategically placed in the social order, with enough social power to constitute an
influential lobby.
As the prototype of this mutant species of Homo Americanus , McCain is the
perfect enemy of the new nationalism that handed the White House to Donald Trump and sundered
the Brits from the EU. It's no surprise he's become the antipode of the Trumpian "America
First" foreign policy doctrine – a doctrine that is almost never implemented, but that's
another column.
His latest philippic perfectly summarizes the spirit and content of the brazen imperialism
that is his credo and the credo of his class, We get the whole grand tour of McCainism as a
worldview, from the rather odd idea that "America is an idea" and not an actual place to
the glories of the "international order." There is much shedding of blood "to make a better
world" – a cause we are told has "made our own civilization more just, freer, more
accomplished and prosperous than the America that existed when I watched my father go off to
war on December 7, 1941." Now here is crackpot Keynesianism with a vengeance:
the destruction of World War II was good for the economy!
Having "liberated" the world from itself, the United States, as the champion of World
Order, is in danger of turning away from its sacred duty to always be shedding lots and lots of
blood on behalf of Others. And we know just who McCain is talking about:
"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon
the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international
leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some
half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than
solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that
Americans consigned to the ash heap of history."
The idea that we led and organized the world for the entire postwar era erases the cold war
from history, a neat trick given McCain's record. And as for our "ideals" and this "last best
hope" business, none of that is worth a single American soldier – nor does it have
anything to do with a soldier's proper job, which is protecting this country. Yet what is one
to expect from someone who actually believes "we live in a land of ideals, not blood and soil."
Blood never comes into it for McCain unless it's being shed in some ill-conceived totally
unnecessary war. And as for soil – there is none. There's just "ideals," floating in a
void.
While admitting that the Trumpian version of American nationalism is somewhat undercooked
– and, perhaps, not all that digestible – one has to wonder: where does a supporter
of the Iraq war, who assured us it would be a glorious victory, get off calling anybody or
anything half-baked?
McCain doesn't even try making a coherent argument: instead, he simply lies by claiming
that, having taken the road to Empire, "we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we
did." It's utter nonsense, of course: empires are an expensive luxury. We spend more on the
military than the top ten powers combined, and the national debt is at historic heights. We're
effectively bankrupt thanks to out-of-control military spending and McCain's favored wars of
choice.
The idea that we have a "moral obligation" to enforce McCain's beloved "international order"
is rooted in the crazed post-millennial pietism
that has motivated so much that is mischievous in American history. The
old religious impulse that motivated Prohibition and the "anti-vice" campaigns of the
nineteenth century has, today, been secularized and internationalized. The old fundamentalists
sought to remake the country, their secular successors seek to remake the
world . This accounts for the quasi-religious tone of McCain's remarks, this talk of "moral
obligation" and "shame" if we fail to take up the burden of Empire, manfully and willfully,
because "We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn't
deserve to."
In other words: Americans have no right to live their lives in peace, and to leave others in
the same condition: they must perpetually be sticking their noses in other peoples' business,
sniffing out "injustice" and making sure the trains run on time. McCain hails the crusade to
"help make another, better world" – yet the American people don't want another world,
they want to live in this world in peace and security, rather than sacrificing
themselves to some imaginary "duty" to uplift the world on Uncle Sam's shoulders. That's one
reason why Trump is in the White House and McCain is on the outside looking in.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
"... each of Carter's successors has reinterpreted his eponymous doctrine, broadening its scope and using it to justify ever larger ambitions. The ultimate effect has been to militarize U.S. policy across various quarters of the Islamic world. ..."
"... The Carter Doctrine was intended to secure U.S. interests in a region of ostensibly great strategic importance. Those who have applied the Carter Doctrine have assumed that the presence of U.S. forces and the periodic application of American hard power serve to enhance regional stability. Yet the record of the past 30 years suggests just the opposite: The U. S. military presence and activities have served only to promote greater instability. Our exertions, undertaken at great cost to ourselves and others, are making things not better, but worse. ..."
April 1, 2010 For most Americans, the 30th anniversary of the Carter Doctrine – promulgated
by President Jimmy Carter during his January 1980 State of the Union Address – came and went without
notice.
The oversight ranks as an unfortunate one. To an extent that few have fully appreciated, the Carter
Doctrine has had a transformative impact on U.S. national security policy. Both massive and lasting,
its impact has also been almost entirely pernicious. Put simply, the sequence of events that has
landed the United States in the middle of an open-ended war to determine the fate of the Greater
Middle East begins here.
The Carter Doctrine stands in relation to the ongoing Long War as the Truman Doctrine stood in
relation to the Cold War.
In 1947, President Truman announced that it was "the policy of the United States to support free
peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Truman's
immediate purpose was to persuade Congress to approve his request for security assistance to Greece
and Turkey. Yet under Truman's successors, his doctrine morphed into something more than he probably
envisioned or intended. Under the guise of resisting Communist mischief-making, the Truman Doctrine
provided a rationale for U. S. intervention, covert and overt, around the world.
Carter's immediate aim in January 1980 was also limited. When he declared that "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," to be "repelled by any means necessary," his primary purpose
was to warn the Kremlin against entertaining any thoughts about asserting Soviet dominion over the
world's energy heartland. Yet each of Carter's successors has reinterpreted his eponymous doctrine,
broadening its scope and using it to justify ever larger ambitions. The ultimate effect has been
to militarize U.S. policy across various quarters of the Islamic world.
Prior to January 1980, the Pentagon and the rest of the national security establishment had viewed
the Middle East as a backwater. In terms of U. S. strategic priorities, that region of the world
lagged well behind Europe and East Asia and probably behind Latin America, as well.
Jimmy Carter's announcement that the Persian Gulf constituted a vital U.S. national security interest
changed all that. In short order, the aims implied by the Carter Doctrine expanded. Within a decade,
the United States was not content to prevent outside powers from controlling the Gulf. It sought
to claim for itself a dominant position in the region. Within two decades, the arena in which the
United States sought that dominant role had expanded, eventually encompassing the entire Greater
Middle East.
Directly or indirectly, the Carter Doctrine provided the rationale or justification for the following
episodes involving the use of force by the United States:
Afghanistan War I (1979-1989), the U.S.-led effort to punish the Soviet Union for occupying
that country.
The Beirut Bombing (1983), the name by which Americans choose to remember Ronald Reagan's
intervention in Lebanon.
The war against Khaddafi (1981-1988), a series of inconclusive skirmishes with the Libyan
dictator, culminating in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103.
The Tanker War (1984-1988), waged by U. S. naval forces against Iran to maintain the flow
of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iraq War I (1990-1991), the first U. S. armed confrontation with Saddam Hussein, commonly
but erroneously thought to have ended with the liberation of Kuwait.
The Somalia Intervention (1992-1993), abruptly terminated by the notorious Mogadishu firefight.
Afghanistan War II (2001-2003), launched in the wake of 9/11, but left in abeyance by the
Bush administration's decision to shift the weight of U.S. military efforts elsewhere.
Iraq War II (2003), the resumption of large-scale hostilities against Saddam Hussein, leading
to his overthrow, but inducing chaos.
Iraq War III (2004-2010?), a war to pacify Iraq in the face of resistance by indigenous insurgents
and Islamic radicals raised up by Iraq War II.
Afghanistan War III (2009 --), the conflict that Bush's successor rediscovered, renewed, and
expanded; given the deepening U.S. military involvement in Pakistan, this war might alternatively
be called the AfPak War.
The Carter Doctrine was intended to secure U.S. interests in a region of ostensibly great strategic
importance. Those who have applied the Carter Doctrine have assumed that the presence of U.S. forces
and the periodic application of American hard power serve to enhance regional stability. Yet the
record of the past 30 years suggests just the opposite: The U. S. military presence and activities
have served only to promote greater instability. Our exertions, undertaken at great cost to ourselves
and others, are making things not better, but worse.
"... The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of "threats" that are vastly exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We'd actually put it in the category of cocktail party chatter. ..."
"... The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so. ..."
"... That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the neocon's in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war's end, the Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every war until 1945. ..."
"... So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it (including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region). ..."
"... Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing more than Iran's foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is permitted to have. ..."
"... Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon (Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help, which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic State. ..."
He was right. Russia today is a shadow of what Ronald Reagan called the Evil
Empire. Its GDP of $1.3 trillion is smaller than that of the New York metro area ($1.6
trillion) and only 7 percent of total US GDP.
Moreover, unlike the militarized Soviet economy which devoted upwards of 40 percent of
output to defense, the current Russian defense budget of $60 billion is just 4.5 percent of its
vastly shrunken GDP.
So how in the world did the national security apparatus convince the Donald that we need the
$700 billion defense program for FY 2018 – 12X bigger than Russia's – that he just
signed into law?
What we mean, of course, is how do you explain that – beyond the fact that the Donald
knows virtually nothing about national security policy and history; and, to boot, is surrounded
by generals who have spent a lifetime scouring the earth for enemies and threats to repel and
reasons for more weapons and bigger forces.
The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity
and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of "threats" that are vastly
exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition
in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We'd actually put it in the category of cocktail
party chatter.
... ... ...
The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it
constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no
real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American
homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so.
Indeed, to continue with our historical benchmarks, the American homeland has not been so
immune to foreign military threat since WW II. Yet during all those years of true peril, it
never spent close too the Donald's $700 billion boondoggle.
For instance, during the height of LBJs Vietnam folly (1968) defense spending in today's
dollars was about $400 billion. And even at the top of Reagan's utterly unnecessary military
building up (by the 1980s the Soviet Union was collapsing under the weight of its own socialist
dystopia), total US defense spending was just $550 billion.
That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the
neocon's in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war's end, the
Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every
war until 1945.
So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order
to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of
the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it
(including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region).
The truth, however, is that according to the 2008 NIE ( National Intelligence Estimates) of
the nation's 17 intelligence agency, the Iranian's never had a serious nuclear weapons program,
and the small research effort that they did have was disbanded by orders of the Ayatollah
Khamenei in 2003.
Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing
more than Iran's foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is
permitted to have.
Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made
political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include
the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the
largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon
(Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of
the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi
Arabia.
In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help,
which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent
alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground
in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic
State.
In tomorrow's installment we will address the details of the Iran nuke agreement and why the
Donald is making a horrible mistake in proposing to decertify it. But there should be no doubt
about the consequence: It will reinforce the neocon dominance of the Republican party and
insure that the nation's $1 trillion Warfare State remains fully entrenched.
Needless to say, that will also insure that the America's gathering fiscal crisis will turn
into an outright Fiscal Calamity in the years just ahead.
David Stockman has agreed to send every Antiwar.com reader a free copy of his newest
book, Trumped! when you take his special Contra Corner offer. Click here now for the
details.
"... There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars. ..."
"... The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. ..."
"... It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes. ..."
"... At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'. ..."
Dakota Wood
makes the usual alarmist case for throwing more money at the military. This passage stood out
for how wrong it is:
Churchill repeatedly warned his countrymen of the dangers of complacency, misguided priorities,
and weakness of will, of the foolishness to see the world and major competitors as being anything
other than what they truly are. While praising the virtues and spirit of moderation that defined
the English-speaking peoples of his day, he also urged them to recognize the necessity of having
the courage to take timely action when dangers threatened and clearly visible trends in an eroding
ability to provide for their common defense were leading toward disaster.
A similar state of affairs afflicts the United States today. To the extent America intervenes
in the affairs of others, it is because the United States has been attacked first, an ally is
in dire need of assistance, or an enemy threatens broader regional stability [bold mine-DL].
Over ten years ago, Rick Santorum talked incessantly about "the gathering storm" in a very conscious
echo of Churchill, and subsequent events have proven his alarmism to have been just as unfounded
and ridiculous as it seemed to be at the time. Hawks are often eager to invoke the 1930s to try to
scare their audience into accepting more aggressive policies and more military spending than our
security actually requires. Some of this may come from believing their own propaganda about the threats
that they exaggerate, and some of it may just be a reflex, but as analysis of the contemporary scene
it is always wrong. There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state
actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are
much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The
U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government
should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars.
Churchill-quoting alarmists aren't just bad at assessing the scale and nature of foreign threats,
but they are usually also oblivious to the shoddy justifications for intervening and the damage that
our interventionist policies do. The section quoted above reflects an almost touchingly naive belief
that U.S. interventions are always justified and never cause more harm than they prevent. Very few
U.S. interventions over the last thirty years fit the description Wood gives. The only time that
the U.S. has intervened militarily abroad in response to an attack during this period was in Afghanistan
as part of the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. Every other intervention has been a choice
to attack another country or to take sides in an ongoing conflict, and these interventions have usually
had nothing to do with coming to the defense of an ally or preventing regional instability. Our interference
in the affairs of others is often illegal under both domestic and/or international law (e.g., Kosovo,
Libya, Iraq), it is very rarely related to U.S. or allied security, and it tends to cause a great
deal of harm to the country and the surrounding region that are supposedly being "helped" by our
government's actions.
The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts
of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with
no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region.
The U.S. didn't invade Panama in 1989 to help an ally or because we were attacked, but simply to
topple the government there. Intervention in Haiti in 1994 didn't come in response to an attack or
to assist an ally, but because Washington wanted to restore a deposed leader. Bombing Yugoslavia
in 1999 was an attack on a country that posed no threat to us or our allies. The Libyan war was a
war for regime change and a war of choice. A few allies did urge the U.S. to intervene in Libya,
but not because they were in "dire need of assistance." The only thing that Britain and France needed
in 2011 was the means to launch an attack on another country whose government posed no threat to
them. Meddling in Syria since at least 2012 had nothing to do with defending the U.S. and our allies.
Wood's description certainly doesn't apply to our support for the shameful Saudi-led war on Yemen,
as the U.S. chose to take part in an attack on another country so that our despotic clients could
be "reassured."
It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker
countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other
power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is
needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and
the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's
frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the
affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies
than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries
where our government interferes.
'The gathering storm' I read that and I was dying to know which storm he was referring too.
At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every
desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia'
or 'N. Korea'.
It's surprising how low on the list N. Korea typically ranks as the hawks try to turn attention
quickly back to Iran. 'Iran is funding and developing their nuclear program, Iran is going to
buy their nuclear weapons'. At least in the case of N. Korea we do have a country that obviously
does possess WMD and is developing ICBM's and is likely to sell them in the future (even to our
best friends the Saudis).
"... There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars. ..."
"... The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. ..."
"... It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes. ..."
"... At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'. ..."
Dakota Wood
makes the usual alarmist case for throwing more money at the military. This passage stood out
for how wrong it is:
Churchill repeatedly warned his countrymen of the dangers of complacency, misguided priorities,
and weakness of will, of the foolishness to see the world and major competitors as being anything
other than what they truly are. While praising the virtues and spirit of moderation that defined
the English-speaking peoples of his day, he also urged them to recognize the necessity of having
the courage to take timely action when dangers threatened and clearly visible trends in an eroding
ability to provide for their common defense were leading toward disaster.
A similar state of affairs afflicts the United States today. To the extent America intervenes
in the affairs of others, it is because the United States has been attacked first, an ally is
in dire need of assistance, or an enemy threatens broader regional stability [bold mine-DL].
Over ten years ago, Rick Santorum talked incessantly about "the gathering storm" in a very conscious
echo of Churchill, and subsequent events have proven his alarmism to have been just as unfounded
and ridiculous as it seemed to be at the time. Hawks are often eager to invoke the 1930s to try to
scare their audience into accepting more aggressive policies and more military spending than our
security actually requires. Some of this may come from believing their own propaganda about the threats
that they exaggerate, and some of it may just be a reflex, but as analysis of the contemporary scene
it is always wrong. There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state
actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are
much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The
U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government
should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars.
Churchill-quoting alarmists aren't just bad at assessing the scale and nature of foreign threats,
but they are usually also oblivious to the shoddy justifications for intervening and the damage that
our interventionist policies do. The section quoted above reflects an almost touchingly naive belief
that U.S. interventions are always justified and never cause more harm than they prevent. Very few
U.S. interventions over the last thirty years fit the description Wood gives. The only time that
the U.S. has intervened militarily abroad in response to an attack during this period was in Afghanistan
as part of the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. Every other intervention has been a choice
to attack another country or to take sides in an ongoing conflict, and these interventions have usually
had nothing to do with coming to the defense of an ally or preventing regional instability. Our interference
in the affairs of others is often illegal under both domestic and/or international law (e.g., Kosovo,
Libya, Iraq), it is very rarely related to U.S. or allied security, and it tends to cause a great
deal of harm to the country and the surrounding region that are supposedly being "helped" by our
government's actions.
The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts
of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with
no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region.
The U.S. didn't invade Panama in 1989 to help an ally or because we were attacked, but simply to
topple the government there. Intervention in Haiti in 1994 didn't come in response to an attack or
to assist an ally, but because Washington wanted to restore a deposed leader. Bombing Yugoslavia
in 1999 was an attack on a country that posed no threat to us or our allies. The Libyan war was a
war for regime change and a war of choice. A few allies did urge the U.S. to intervene in Libya,
but not because they were in "dire need of assistance." The only thing that Britain and France needed
in 2011 was the means to launch an attack on another country whose government posed no threat to
them. Meddling in Syria since at least 2012 had nothing to do with defending the U.S. and our allies.
Wood's description certainly doesn't apply to our support for the shameful Saudi-led war on Yemen,
as the U.S. chose to take part in an attack on another country so that our despotic clients could
be "reassured."
It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker
countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other
power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is
needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and
the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's
frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the
affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies
than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries
where our government interferes.
'The gathering storm' I read that and I was dying to know which storm he was referring too.
At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every
desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia'
or 'N. Korea'.
It's surprising how low on the list N. Korea typically ranks as the hawks try to turn attention
quickly back to Iran. 'Iran is funding and developing their nuclear program, Iran is going to
buy their nuclear weapons'. At least in the case of N. Korea we do have a country that obviously
does possess WMD and is developing ICBM's and is likely to sell them in the future (even to our
best friends the Saudis).
"... (Full transcript follows below with key points in bold.) ..."
"... When Donald Trump became President, he received the people's mandate to build a rational relationship with Russia, and to implement a more rational policy in the world. ..."
"... He wasn't supposed to overthrow foreign governments . Right now , Trump acts in direct opposition to his voters' expectations. ..."
Particularly guilty are the media, because they are in the business of selling this horror
show to the unsuspecting public.
Take a few minutes and listen to what this man has to say.
He says it well, and he hits the nail on the head, as painful as it might be to admit
it.
Time for a change of leadership, America.
(Full transcript follows below with key points in bold.)
Isn't this how how the US acts all over the world though? They destroy countries, cause civil wars, bring sorrow and poverty to entire nations. Just
like that. They seem to not even notice the consequences of their actions. They blame others for everything, and then gloat about being sinless. With this simple, carefree mentality, they can allow themselves everything.
America fines European banks and companies, to punish them for defying America. They impose unilateral sanctions in Europe against those who want to buy cheaper Russian
gas, instead of the more expensive American gas. They tap phones and read emails of billions of people on the planet, including the leaders
of US allied countries. They arrest foreign citizens all over the world and throw them in secret jail outside of
the US. Outside of the US of course, so that they can torture them , without fear of breaking
any of their own laws. They plan and execute coup d'etats and color revolutions. They usually time them with the
elections in the victim country.
They de facto continue to militarily occupy Germany and Japan . The US has a huge number
of military bases in these countries. A base, by the way, is a foreign military force. It
directly limits the sovereignty and the ability of the occupied country to act in their own
national interests.
They start and execute military operations without sanctions from the UN. They falsely justify their own actions and act on false pretenses . For cover, they gather
fake coalitions And all of this is done with that simple American air of naïveté. That same mindset allows them to be allied with what is left of Islamic State in
Deir-ez-Zor.
With the same simple-mindedness, Trump threatened to destroy an entire country at the UN
General Assembly. The Americans have already announced that they are pulling out of the the nuclear
agreement with Iran. Without any justifiable reasons, in spite of everything and everyone.
Just like that.
When Donald Trump became President, he received the people's mandate to build a rational
relationship with Russia, and to implement a more rational policy in the world.
He wasn't supposed to overthrow foreign governments . Right now , Trump acts in direct
opposition to his voters' expectations.
Is there, at least , one problem in the world which the US has helped solve this year? -
No.
What's worse, he made North Korea even more dangerous and non-complying. South Korea and Japan are in clear danger now. He has deployed more troops to Afghanistan , but we don't know what he is trying to
accomplish there either. In Syria, the US has lost its strategic goals and started to directly oppose Russia and
the anti-terrorist forces. He is on bad terms with Turkey, he has scared off Europe, and nothing good is happening in
South America, either. Tensions between the US and China are growing. Relations with Russia are at an all-time
low.
It's bad enough that the US took over Russian diplomatic residencies, but they are also
tearing through them like nobody's business. How else one would label the actions of those
agents in our Consulate in San Francisco? Does it mean that Russia must respond in a mutual manner? Perhaps as simple-mindedly as
the US does? If Russia did, it would ruin the very concept of diplomacy. What would be next? Or does
Washington prefer not to think about that? Or do they? The less diplomacy there is, the less politeness and nice words, the higher the demand for
US weapons. That's much better.
It's not like diplomacy is very lucrative. It's about airing concerns, which leads
to...unneeded restrictions. Taking the high road is difficult, and the low road is always
there . It is coarser, but it does have elements of cheap theatricality.
Take for example what Trump did when he went to Puerto Rico after the hurricane. For appearances sake, he brought his wife along. She wasn't wearing her usual high heels ,
but specially bought yellow Timberlands. He made the local Americans happy, personally throwing paper towels into the crowd. It looked like one big ridiculous show.
And it all took place on a day of nationwide mourning in honor of the mass shooting in Las
Vegas.
"... In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government. ..."
"... Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home." ..."
"... This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in. ..."
"... Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war." ..."
In a new interview with host Jesse Ventura at RT, former United States presidential candidate
and House of Representatives Member Dennis Kucinich stressed the importance of the American people
challenging the "two-party duopoly that's committed to war."
In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for
US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US
effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government.
Regarding the Iraq War, Kucinich, who is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for
Peace and Prosperity, explains that his research showed that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing
to do with al-Qaeda's role in 9/11, didn't have any connection to the anthrax attack, didn't have
the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and didn't have the weapons of mass
destruction that were being claimed." This information, Kucinich relates, he provided to US Congress
members in an October 2, 2002
report showing "there was no cause for war."
Despite Kucinich and other individuals' efforts to stop the march toward war, Congress passed
an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against Iraq later in October, and the invasion
of Iraq commenced in March of 2003.
Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US
government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium,
this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with
"over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we
ignore our own problems here at home."
Why are we "wasting the blood of our nation, the treasure of our nation, our young people" on
these overseas activities that are "causing catastrophes among families in other countries?" Kucinich
asks. He answers as follows:
This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts
to cash in.
Continuing with his explanation for the support for the Iraq War and other US military intervention
abroad, Kucinich says:
The problem today we have in Washington is that both political parties have converged with the
military-industrial complex, fulfilling President Eisenhower's nightmare and setting America on
a path toward destruction.
Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans
both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global
cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war."
"... While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality. ..."
"... Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ..."
"... The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. ..."
"... On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. ..."
"... Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. ..."
"... Blather crowds out substance. ..."
"... Besides, we're too busy. ..."
"... Anyway, the next president will save us. ..."
"... Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. ..."
"... Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question. ..."
Consider, if you will, these two indisputable facts. First, the United States is today more
or less permanently engaged in hostilities in not one faraway place, but
at least seven . Second, the vast majority of the American people could not care less.
Nor can it be said that we don't care because we don't know. True, government authorities
withhold certain aspects of ongoing military operations or release only details that they find
convenient. Yet information describing what U.S. forces are doing (and where) is readily
available, even if buried in recent months by barrages of presidential tweets. Here, for anyone
interested, are press releases issued by United States Central Command for just one recent
week:
September 19 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 20 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 25 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
September 26 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
Ever since the United States launched its war on terror, oceans of military press releases
have poured forth. And those are just for starters. To provide updates on the U.S. military's
various ongoing campaigns, generals, admirals, and high-ranking defense officials regularly
testify before congressional committees or brief members of the press. From the field,
journalists offer updates that fill in at least some of the details -- on civilian casualties,
for example -- that government authorities prefer not to disclose. Contributors to newspaper
op-ed pages and "experts" booked by network and cable TV news shows, including passels of
retired military officers, provide analysis. Trailing behind come books and documentaries that
put things in a broader perspective.
But here's the truth of it. None of it matters.
Like traffic jams or robocalls, war has fallen into the category of things that Americans
may not welcome, but have learned to live with. In twenty-first-century America, war is not
that big a deal.
While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara
once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it
possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire."
With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved
grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.
Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at
least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between
effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of
dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ]?
Perhaps just posing such a question propels us instantly into the realm of the unanswerable,
like trying to figure out why people idolize Justin Bieber, shoot birds, or watch golf on
television.
Without any expectation of actually piercing our collective ennui, let me take a stab at
explaining why we don't give a @#$%&! Here are eight distinctive but mutually reinforcing
explanations, offered in a sequence that begins with the blindingly obvious and ends with the
more speculative.
Americans don't attend all that much to ongoing American wars because:
1. U.S. casualtyrates are low . By using proxies and contractors, and
relying heavily on airpower, America's war managers have been able to keep a tight lid on the
number of U.S. troops being killed and wounded. In all of 2017, for example, a grand total of 11 American soldiers have been
lost in Afghanistan -- about equal to the number of shooting deaths in Chicago over the course of a
typical week. True, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where the U.S. is engaged in
hostilities, whether directly or indirectly, plenty of people who are not Americans are being
killed and maimed. (The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed this year alone exceeds 12,000 .) But those
casualties have next to no political salience as far as the United States is concerned. As long
as they don't impede U.S. military operations, they literally don't count (and generally aren't
counted).
2. The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. In a famous
speech , dating from early in his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower said that "Every gun
that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft
from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dollars spent
on weaponry, Ike insisted, translated directly into schools, hospitals, homes, highways, and
power plants that would go unbuilt. "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense," he
continued. "[I]t is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." More than six decades later,
Americans have long since accommodated themselves to that cross of iron. Many actually see it
as a boon, a source of corporate profits, jobs, and, of course, campaign contributions. As
such, they avert their eyes from the opportunity costs of our never-ending wars. The dollars
expended pursuant to our post-9/11 conflicts will ultimately number in the multi-trillions . Imagine the benefits of
investing such sums in upgrading the nation's aging infrastructure . Yet don't count on
Congressional leaders, other politicians, or just about anyone else to pursue that
connection.
On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. Others have made the
point so frequently that it's the equivalent of hearing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" at
Christmastime. Even so, it bears repeating: the American people have defined their obligation
to "support the troops" in the
narrowest imaginable
terms , ensuring above all that such support requires absolutely no sacrifice on their
part. Members of Congress abet this civic apathy, while also taking steps to
insulate themselves from responsibility. In effect, citizens and their elected
representatives in Washington agree: supporting the troops means deferring to the commander in
chief, without inquiring about whether what he has the troops doing makes the slightest sense.
Yes, we set down our beers long enough to applaud those in uniform and
boo those who decline to participate in mandatory rituals of patriotism. What we don't do
is demand anything remotely approximating actual accountability.
4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. While international
terrorism isn't a trivial problem (and wasn't for decades before 9/11), it comes
nowhere close to posing an existential threat to the United States. Indeed, other threats,
notably the impact of climate change, constitute a far greater danger to the wellbeing of
Americans. Worried about the safety of your children or grandchildren? The opioid epidemic
constitutes an infinitely greater danger than "Islamic radicalism." Yet having been sold a bill
of goods about a "war on terror" that is essential for "keeping America safe," mere citizens
are easily persuaded that scattering U.S. troops throughout the Islamic world while dropping
bombs on designated evildoers is helping win the former while guaranteeing the latter. To
question that proposition becomes tantamount to suggesting that God might not have given Moses
two stone tablets after all.
5. Blather crowds out substance. When it comes to foreign policy, American public
discourse is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- vacuous, insipid, and mindlessly
repetitive. William Safire of the New York Times once characterized American political
rhetoric as BOMFOG, with those running for high office relentlessly touting the Brotherhood of
Man and the Fatherhood of God. Ask a politician, Republican or Democrat, to expound on this
country's role in the world, and then brace yourself for some variant of WOSFAD, as the speaker
insists that it is incumbent upon the World's Only Superpower to spread Freedom and Democracy.
Terms like leadership and indispensable are introduced, along with warnings
about the dangers of isolationism and appeasement, embellished with ominous
references to Munich . Such grandiose posturing makes it unnecessary to probe too
deeply into the actual origins and purposes of American wars, past or present, or assess the
likelihood of ongoing wars ending in some approximation of actual success. Cheerleading
displaces serious thought.
6. Besides, we're too busy. Think of this as a corollary to point five. Even if the
present-day American political scene included figures like Senators Robert
La Follette or J. William Fulbright ,
who long ago warned against the dangers of militarizing U.S. policy, Americans may not retain a
capacity to attend to such critiques. Responding to the demands of the Information Age is not,
it turns out, conducive to deep reflection. We live in an era (so we are told) when frantic
multitasking has become a sort of duty and when being overscheduled is almost obligatory. Our
attention span shrinks and with it our time horizon. The matters we attend to are those that
happened just hours or minutes ago. Yet like the great solar eclipse of 2017 -- hugely
significant and instantly forgotten -- those matters will, within another few minutes or hours,
be superseded by some other development that briefly captures our attention. As a result, a
dwindling number of Americans -- those not compulsively checking Facebook pages and Twitter
accounts -- have the time or inclination to ponder questions like: When will the Afghanistan
War end? Why has it lasted almost 16 years? Why doesn't the finest fighting force in history actually win?
Can't package an answer in 140 characters or a 30-second made-for-TV sound bite? Well, then,
slowpoke, don't expect anyone to attend to what you have to say.
7. Anyway, the next president will save us. At regular intervals, Americans indulge
in the fantasy that, if we just install the right person in the White House, all will be well.
Ambitious politicians are quick to exploit this expectation. Presidential candidates struggle
to differentiate themselves from their competitors, but all of them promise in one way or
another to wipe the slate clean and Make America Great Again. Ignoring the historical record of
promises broken or unfulfilled, and presidents who turn out not to be deities but flawed human
beings, Americans -- members of the media above all -- pretend to take all this seriously.
Campaigns become longer, more expensive, more circus-like, and ever less substantial. One might
think that the election of Donald Trump would prompt a downward revision in the exalted
expectations of presidents putting things right. Instead, especially in the anti-Trump camp,
getting rid of Trump himself (Collusion! Corruption! Obstruction! Impeachment!) has become the
overriding imperative, with little attention given to restoring the balance intended by the
framers of the Constitution. The irony of Trump perpetuating wars that he once roundly
criticized and then handing the conduct of those wars to generals devoid of ideas for ending
them almost entirely escapes notice.
8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism.
As recently as the 1990s, the U.S. military establishment aligned itself with the retrograde
side of the culture wars. Who can forget the gays-in-the-military controversy that rocked Bill
Clinton's administration during his first weeks in office, as senior military leaders publicly
denounced their commander-in-chief? Those days are long gone. Culturally, the armed forces have
moved left. Today, the services go out of their way to project an
image of tolerance and a commitment to equality on all matters related to race, gender, and
sexuality. So when President Trump announced his opposition to transgendered persons serving in
the armed forces, tweeting
that the military "cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that
transgender in the military would entail," senior officers politely but firmly disagreed and
pushed
back . Given the ascendency of cultural issues near the top of the U.S. political agenda,
the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism and from being called
to account for a less than sterling performance in waging wars. Put simply, critics who in an
earlier day might have blasted military leaders for their inability to bring wars to a
successful conclusion hold their fire. Having women graduate from
Ranger School or command
Marines in combat more than compensates for not winning.
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don't
expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the New York Times to lose any
sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them -- and us -- to care.
You have enumerated ten general reasons why Americans "don't attend" to ongoing
wars.
Let me add a further specific one: the draft or lack of same. If there were a draft
in place either the powers-that-be would not even dare to contemplate any of our present
martial misadventures, or failing that the outraged citizenry would burn down the
Congress!
BTW I had never thought about reason #8: the military's embrace of diversity helps to
insulate it from criticism. This explains General Casey's inane statement that diversity
shouldn't be a casualty of the Fort Hood massacre by a "diverse" officer!
One reason Trump won is that he promised to pull back the empire, while suggesting the
Pentagon already has plenty of money. After the election, he demanded a 10% increase, and
threatens North Korea to justify it! This increase alone is bigger than the entire annual
military budget of Russia! The public is informed that this is because of cuts during the
Obama years, but there were no cuts, only limits to increases.
How did the Democrats react? Most voted for a bigger military budget than the mindless
increase proposed by Trump! That news was not reported by our corporate media, as Jimmy Dore
explained:
A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America.
Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they
were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who
cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question.
Structurally, you have arms production, military bases, hospitals, and related service
industries across nearly all the congressional districts in the country.
So it is an enormous set of vested interests with both voting power and corporate money
for campaign treasuries.
Quoting Ike was good, and he mentions the opportunity cost in schools, roads, etc. –
but also the organizing political and economic power of the military industrial complex.
The government schools are with some exceptions worthless. No subject, let alone war, is
taken on seriously.
The legacy media has been co-opted by the MIC/Financial interests. The state is spying on
everyone and everyone knows so. Free speech, free association, free assembly, right to bear
arms, confront your accuser, trial by jury, habeas corpus – all gone now.
So the sheep behave. They walk by the dead whistling, and look straight ahead.
While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the
"greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the
United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard
to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely
premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.
He was dead wrong about this in the 60′s as it soon became obvious to everyone else.
But we learned how "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." Cut out
the military draft and embed the press into the ranks so they dare not report the actions
they witness.
Chris Hedges published this book eight years ago and the things he predicted have sadly been
realized
Notable quotes:
"... his screed is a liberating tonic against the crazy-making double-speak and the lies Americans are sold by our country's elite in order to distract us from the true threat and nature of the Corporate State, from the cult of celebrity, to how our nation's Universities have been hijacked to serve the interests, not of the public, but of our corporate overlords. It explains the self-same conditions in all aspects of our society and culture that we now must face, the ever-shrinking flame of enlightenment being exchanged for the illusory shadows on a cave wall. ..."
"... He fearlessly and incisively calls us out on the obvious farce our democracy has become, how we got here, and highlights the rapidly closing window in which we have to do something to correct it. It is a revelation, and yet he merely states the obvious. The empire has no clothes. ..."
"... One of the most powerful aspects of this book was in regard to how our Universities are run these days. I may be in the minority, but I experienced a life-changing disillusionment when I gained entrance to a prestigious "elite" University. Instead of drawing the best and the brightest, or being a place where scholarship was valued, where students were taught critical thinking skills, the University I attended was nothing more than an expensive diploma mill for the children of the wealthy. In the eyes of the University, students were not minds to be empowered and developed, but walking dollar signs. ..."
"... Instead of critical thinking, students were taught to OBEY, not to question authority, and then handed a piece of paper admitting them to the ruling class that is destroying America without a moral compass. Selfishness, deceit, disregard for the common good, and a win-at-all-costs attitude were rewarded. Empathy, curiosity, dissent, and an honest, intellectually rigorous evaluation of ourselves and our world were punished. Obviously I am not the only one to whom this was cause to fear for the future of our country. ..."
"... The chapter involving the porn trade that is run by large corporations such as AT&T and GM (the car maker, for crying out loud) was an especially dark, profanity-laced depiction of the abuse and moral decay of American society . ..."
"... He is correct in his belief that the continual barrage of psuedo-events and puffery disguised as news (especially television) has conditioned most of Americans to be non-critical thinkers. ..."
"... Entertainment, consumption and the dangerous illusion that the U.S. is the best in the world at everything are childish mindsets. ..."
"... The are the puppet masters." As extreme as that is, he is more credible when he says, "Commodities and celebrity culture define what it means to belong, how we recognize our place in society, and how we conduct our lives." I say 'credible' because popular and mass culture's influence are creating a world where substance is replaced by questionable style. ..."
"... Celebrity and connectivity are both ways of becoming known. This is what the contemporary self wants. It wants to be recognized, wants to be connected: It wants to be visible. If not to the millions, on Survivor or Oprah, then to the hundreds, on Twitter or Facebook. ..."
"... Visibility has replaced substance and accomplishment; packaging over product, sizzle not steak. Chris Rojek calls this "the cult of distraction" where society is consumed by the vacuous and the vapid rather than striving for self-awareness, accomplishment and contribution ("Propaganda has become a substitute for ideas and ideology."). Hedges builds on Rojek's descriptor by suggesting we are living in a "culture of illusion" which impoverishes language, makes us childlike, and is basically dumbing us all down. ..."
"... Today's delusionary and corrupted officials, corporate and government, are reminiscent of the narratives penned by Charles Dickens. Alexander Hamilton referred to the masses as a "great beast" to be kept from the powers of government. ..."
"... Edmund Burke used propaganda to control "elements of society". Walter Lippmann advised that "the public must be kept in its place". Yet, many Americans just don't get it. ..."
"... Divide and conquer is the mantra--rich vs. poor; black vs. white. According to Norm Chomsky's writings, "In 1934, William Shepard argued that government should be in the hands of `aristocracy and intellectual power' while the `ignorant, and the uninformed and the antisocial element' must not be permitted to control elections...." ..."
"... The appalling statistics and opinions outlined in the book demonstrate the public ignorance of the American culture; the depth and extent of the corporatocracy and the related economic malaise; and, the impact substandard schools have on their lives. ..."
"... This idea was recently usurped by the U.S. Supreme Court where representative government is called to question, rendering "our" consent irrelevant. Every voting election is an illusion. Each election, at the local and national level, voters never seemingly "miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" to eliminate irresponsible and unresponsive officials. ..."
"... Walt Kelly's quote "We have met the enemy and he is us" prevails! ..."
"... It's also hard to follow at times as Hedges attempts to stress the connections between pop culture and social, political. and economic policy. Nor is Hedges a particularly stylish writer (a sense of humor would help). ..."
"... The stomach-turning chapter on trends in porn and their relationship to the torture of prisoners of war is a particularly sharp piece of analysis, and all of the other chapters do eventually convince (and depress). ..."
Hedges cogently and systematically dismantles the most pernicious cultural delusions of
our era and lays bare the pitiful truths that they attempt to mask. This book is a
deprogramming manual that trims away the folly and noise from our troubled society so that
the reader can focus on the most pressing matters of our time.
Despite the dark reality Hedges excavates, his screed is a liberating tonic against
the crazy-making double-speak and the lies Americans are sold by our country's elite in order
to distract us from the true threat and nature of the Corporate State, from the cult of
celebrity, to how our nation's Universities have been hijacked to serve the interests, not of
the public, but of our corporate overlords. It explains the self-same conditions in all
aspects of our society and culture that we now must face, the ever-shrinking flame of
enlightenment being exchanged for the illusory shadows on a cave wall.
As a twenty-something caught in the death-throes of American Empire and culture, I have
struggled to anticipate where our country and our world are heading, why, and what sort of
life I can expect to build for myself. Hedges presents the reader with the depressing, yet
undeniable truth of the forces that have coalesced to shape the world in which we now find
ourselves. The light he casts is searing and relentless. He fearlessly and incisively
calls us out on the obvious farce our democracy has become, how we got here, and highlights
the rapidly closing window in which we have to do something to correct it. It is a
revelation, and yet he merely states the obvious. The empire has no clothes.
One of the most powerful aspects of this book was in regard to how our Universities
are run these days. I may be in the minority, but I experienced a life-changing
disillusionment when I gained entrance to a prestigious "elite" University. Instead of
drawing the best and the brightest, or being a place where scholarship was valued, where
students were taught critical thinking skills, the University I attended was nothing more
than an expensive diploma mill for the children of the wealthy. In the eyes of the
University, students were not minds to be empowered and developed, but walking dollar
signs.
Instead of critical thinking, students were taught to OBEY, not to question authority,
and then handed a piece of paper admitting them to the ruling class that is destroying
America without a moral compass. Selfishness, deceit, disregard for the common good, and a
win-at-all-costs attitude were rewarded. Empathy, curiosity, dissent, and an honest,
intellectually rigorous evaluation of ourselves and our world were punished. Obviously I am
not the only one to whom this was cause to fear for the future of our country.
Five stars is not enough. Ever since I began reading Empire of Illusion, I have insisted
friends and family pick up a copy, too. Everyone in America should read this incredibly
important book.
Mr. Hedges is in one heck of a foul mood. His raging against the evolving of American
democracy into an oligarchy is accurate, but relentlessly depressing. The author focuses on
some of our most horrid characteristics: celebrity worship; "pro" wrestling; the brutal porn
industry; Jerry Springer-like shows; the military-industrial complex; the moral void of elite
colleges such as Yale, Harvard, Berkeley and Princeton; optimistic-ladened pop psychology;
and political/corporate conformity.
Mr. Hedges grim assessment put me in a seriously foul mood. The chapter involving the
porn trade that is run by large corporations such as AT&T and GM (the car maker, for
crying out loud) was an especially dark, profanity-laced depiction of the abuse and moral
decay of American society .
He is correct in his belief that the continual barrage of psuedo-events and puffery
disguised as news (especially television) has conditioned most of Americans to be
non-critical thinkers.
Entertainment, consumption and the dangerous illusion that the U.S. is the best in the
world at everything are childish mindsets.
The oddest part of Mr. Hedges' book is the ending. The last three pages take such an
unexpectedly hard turn from "all is lost" to "love will conquer," I practically got whiplash.
Overall, the author should be commended for trying to bring our attention to what ails our
country and challenging readers to wake up from their child-like illusions.
Now, time for me to go run a nice, warm bath and where did I put those razor
blades?...
I must say I was captivated by the author's passion, eloquence and insight. This is not an
academic essay. True, there are few statistics here and there and quotes from such and such
person, but this is not like one of those books that read like a longer version of an
academic research paper. The book is more of author's personal observations about American
society. Perhaps that is where its power comes from.
Some might dismiss the book as nothing more than an opinion piece, but how many great
books and works out there are opinion pieces enhanced with supporting facts and
statistics?
The book is divided into five chapters. Chapter one is about celebrity worship and how far
people are willing to humiliate themselves and sacrifice their dignity for their five minutes
of fame. But this is not just about those who are willing to make idiots out of themselves
just to appear on television. This is about how the fascination with the world of rich and
famous distracts the society from the important issues and problems and how it creates
unhealthy and destructive desire to pursue wealth and fame. And even for those few who do
achieve it, their lives are far from the bliss and happiness shown in movies. More than one
celebrity had cursed her life.
Chapter two deals with porn. It offers gutwrenching, vomit inducing descriptions of lives
and conditions in the porn industry. But the damage porn does goes far beyond those working
in the "industry". Porn destroys the love, intimacy and beauty of sex. Porn reduces sex to an
act of male dominance, power and even violence. Unfortunately, many men, and even women, buy
into that and think that the sex seen in porn is normal and this is how things should be.
After reading this chapter, I will never look at porn the same way again. In fact, I
probably will never look at porn at all.
Chapter three is about education. It focuses mostly on college level education and how in
the past few decades it had increasingly changed focus from teaching students how to be
responsible citizens and good human beings to how to be successful, profit seeking, career
obsessed corporate/government drones. The students are taught that making money and career
building are the only thing that matters. This results in professionals who put greed and
selfishness above everything else and mindlessly serve a system that destroys the society and
the whole planet. And when they are faced with problems (like the current economic crisis)
and evidence that the system is broken, rather than rethink their paradigm and consider that
perhaps they were wrong, they retreat further into old thinking in search of ways to
reinforce the (broken) system and keep it going.
Chapter four is my favorite. It is about positive thinking. As someone who lives with a
family member who feeds me positive thinking crap at breakfast, lunch and supper, I enjoyed
this chapter very much. For those rare lucky few who do not know what positive thinking is,
it can be broadly defined as a belief that whatever happens to us in life, it happens because
we "attracted" it to ourselves. Think about it as karma that affects us not in the next life,
but in this one. The movement believes that our conscious and unconscious thoughts affect
reality. By assuming happy, positive outlook on life, we can affect reality and make good
things happen to us.
Followers of positive thinking are encouraged/required to purge all negative emotions,
never question the bad things that happen to them and focus on thinking happy thoughts.
Positive thinking is currently promoted by corporations and to lesser extent governments to
keep employees in line. They are rendered docile and obedient, don't make waves (like fight
for better pay and working conditions) and, when fired, take it calmly with a smile and never
question corporate culture.
Chapter five is about American politics and how the government and the politicians had
sold themselves out to corporations and business. It is about imperialism and how the
government helps the corporations loot the country while foreign wars are started under the
pretext of defense and patriotism, but their real purpose is to loot the foreign lands and
fill the coffers of war profiteers. If allowed to continue, this system will result in
totalitarianism and ecological apocalypse.
I have some objections with this chapter. While I completely agree about the current state
of American politics, the author makes a claim that this is a relatively recent development
dating roughly to the Vietnam War. Before that, especially in the 1950s, things were much
better. Or at least they were for the white men. (The author does admit that 1950s were not
all that great to blacks, women or homosexuals.)
While things might have gotten very bad in the last few decades, politicians and
governments have always been more at the service of Big Money rather than the common
people.
And Vietnam was not the first imperialistic American war. What about the conquest of Cuba
and Philippines at the turn of the 20th century? And about all those American "adventures" in
South America in the 19th century. And what about the westward expansion and extermination of
Native Americans that started the moment the first colonists set their foot on the
continent?
But this is a minor issue. My biggest issue with the book is that it is a powerful
denunciation, but it does not offer much in terms of suggestions on how to fix the problems
it is decrying. Criticizing is good and necessary, but offering solutions is even more
important. You can criticize all you want, but if you cannot suggest something better, then
the old system will stay in place.
The author does write at the end a powerful, tear inducing essay on how love conquers all
and that no totalitarian regime, no matter how powerful and oppressive, had ever managed to
crush hope, love and the human spirit. Love, in the end, conquers all.
That is absolutely true. But what does it mean in practice? That we must keep loving and
doing good? Of course we must, but some concrete, practical examples of what to do would be
welcome.
An excellent and sobering view at the decline of reason and literacy in modern society
This is an absolutely superb work that documents how our society has been subverted by
spectacle, glitz, celebrity, and the obsession with "fame" at the expense of reality,
literacy, reason, and actual ability. Hedges lays it all out in a very clear and thought
provoking style, using real world examples like pro wrestling and celebrity oriented
programming to showcase how severely our society has declined from a forward thinking,
literate one into a mass of tribes obsessed with stardom and money.
Even better is that the author's style is approachable and non judgemental. This isn't an
academic talking down to the masses, but a very solid reporter presenting findings in an
accurate, logical style.
Every American should read this, and then consider whether to buy that glossy celebrity
oriented magazine or watch that "I want to be a millionaire" show. The lifestyle and choices
being promoted by the media, credit card companies, and by the celebrity culture in general,
are toxic and a danger to our society's future.
The various ills impacting society graphically painted by Chris Hedges are attributed to a
lack of literacy. However, it is much more complex, layered, and inter-related. By examining
literacy, love, wisdom, happiness, and the current state of America, the author sets out to
convince the reader that our world is intellectually crumbling. He picks aspects of our
society that clearly offer questionable value: professional wrestling, the pornographic film
industry (which is provided in bizarre repetitive graphic detail), gambling, conspicuous
consumption, and biased news reporting to name a few.
The front of the end of the book was the most compelling. Especially when Hedges strays
into near conspiracy with comments such as this: "Those who manipulate the shadows that
dominate our lives are the agents, publicists, marketing departments, promoters, script
writers, television and movie producers, advertisers, video technicians, photographers,
bodyguards, wardrobe consultants, fitness trainers, pollsters, public announcers, and
television news personalities who create the vast stage for illusion. The are the puppet
masters." As extreme as that is, he is more credible when he says, "Commodities and celebrity
culture define what it means to belong, how we recognize our place in society, and how we
conduct our lives." I say 'credible' because popular and mass culture's influence are
creating a world where substance is replaced by questionable style.
What resonated most in the book is a passage taken from William Deresiewicz's essay The
End of Solitude: "What does the contemporary self want? The camera has created a culture of
celebrity; the computer is creating a culture of connectivity. As the two technologies
converge -- broadband tipping the Web from text to image, social-networking sites spreading
the mesh of interconnection ever wider -- the two cultures betray a common impulse.
Celebrity and connectivity are both ways of becoming known. This is what the
contemporary self wants. It wants to be recognized, wants to be connected: It wants to be
visible. If not to the millions, on Survivor or Oprah, then to the hundreds, on Twitter or
Facebook. This is the quality that validates us, this is how we become real to ourselves
-- by being seen by others. The great contemporary terror is anonymity. If Lionel Trilling
was right, if the property that grounded the self, in Romanticism, was sincerity, and in
modernism it was authenticity, then in postmodernism it is visibility."
Visibility has replaced substance and accomplishment; packaging over product, sizzle
not steak. Chris Rojek calls this "the cult of distraction" where society is consumed by the
vacuous and the vapid rather than striving for self-awareness, accomplishment and
contribution ("Propaganda has become a substitute for ideas and ideology."). Hedges builds on
Rojek's descriptor by suggesting we are living in a "culture of illusion" which impoverishes
language, makes us childlike, and is basically dumbing us all down.
This is definitely a provocative contribution and damning analysis of our society that
would be a great choice for a book club. It would promote lively debate as conclusions and
solutions are not easily reached.
A book that needs to be read, even if it's only half true.
Empire of Illusion might be the most depressing book I've ever read. Why? Because it
predicts the collapse of America and almost every word of it rings true.
I don't know if there's really anything new here; many of the ideas Hedges puts forth have
been floating around in the neglected dark corners of our national discourse, but Hedges
drags them all out into the daylight. Just about every social/cultural/economic/political ill
you can think of is mentioned at some point in the text and laid at the feet of the villains
whose insatiable greed has destroyed this once-great country. Hedges is bold. He predicts
nothing less than the end of America. Indeed, he claims America has already ended. The
American Dream is nothing more than an illusion being propped up by wealthy elites obsessed
with power and the preservation of their lifestyle, a blind academia that has forgotten how
to critique authority, and a government that is nothing more than the puppet of corporations.
Meanwhile, mindless entertainments and a compliant news media divert and mislead the working
and middle classes so they don't even notice that they are being raped to death by the
power-elite and the corporations.
(Don't misunderstand. This is no crack-pot conspiracy theory. It's not about secret
quasi-mystical cabals attempting world domination. Rather, Hedges paints a credible picture
of our culture in a state of moral and intellectual decay, and leaders corrupted by power and
greed who have ceased to act in the public interest.)
At times Hedges seems to be ranting and accusing without providing evidence or examples to
substantiate his claims. But that might only be because his claims have already been
substantiated individually elsewhere, and Hedges's purpose here is a kind of grand synthesis
of many critical ideas. Indeed, an exhaustive analysis of all the issues he brings forth
would require volumes rather than a single book. In any case, I challenge anyone to read this
book, look around honestly at what's happening in America, and conclude that Hedges is
wrong.
One final note: this book is not for the squeamish. The chapter about pornography is
brutally explicit. Still, I think it is an important book, and it would be good if a lot more
people would read it, discuss it, and thereby become dis-illusioned.
Chris Hedges book, "Empire of Illusion" is a stinging assessment and vivid indictment of
America's political and educational systems; a well-told story. I agree with his views but
wonder how they can be reversed or transformed given the economic hegemony of the
corporations and the weight of the entrenched political parties. Very few solutions were
provided.
Corporations will continue to have a presence and set standards within the halls of
educational and governmental institutions with impunity. Limited monetary measures, other
than governmental, exist for public educational institutions, both secondary and
post-secondary. Historically, Roman and Greek political elitists operated in a similar manner
and may have set standards for today's plutocracy. Plebeian societies were helpless and
powerless, with few options, to enact change against the political establishment. Given the
current conditions, America is on a downward spiral to chaos.
His book is a clarion call for action. Parents and teachers have warned repeatedly that
too much emphasis is placed on athletic programs at the expense of academics. Educational
panels, books and other experts have done little to reform the system and its intransigent
administrators.
Today's delusionary and corrupted officials, corporate and government, are reminiscent
of the narratives penned by Charles Dickens. Alexander Hamilton referred to the masses as a
"great beast" to be kept from the powers of government.
Edmund Burke used propaganda to control "elements of society". Walter Lippmann advised
that "the public must be kept in its place". Yet, many Americans just don't get it.
They continue to be hood-winked by politicians using uncontested "sound bites" and
"racially-coded" phrases to persuade voters.
Divide and conquer is the mantra--rich vs. poor; black vs. white. According to Norm
Chomsky's writings, "In 1934, William Shepard argued that government should be in the hands
of `aristocracy and intellectual power' while the `ignorant, and the uninformed and the
antisocial element' must not be permitted to control elections...."
The appalling statistics and opinions outlined in the book demonstrate the public
ignorance of the American culture; the depth and extent of the corporatocracy and the related
economic malaise; and, the impact substandard schools have on their lives. This is
further exemplified by Jay Leno's version of "Jaywalking". On the streets, he randomly
selects passersby to interview, which seems to validate much of these charges.
We are all culpable. We are further susceptible to illusions. John Locke said, "Government
receives its just powers from the consent of the governed".
This idea was recently usurped by the U.S. Supreme Court where representative
government is called to question, rendering "our" consent irrelevant. Every voting election
is an illusion. Each election, at the local and national level, voters never seemingly "miss
an opportunity to miss an opportunity" to eliminate irresponsible and unresponsive
officials.
Walt Kelly's quote "We have met the enemy and he is us" prevails!
There are many flaws with Hedges' book. For one thing, he is given to writing sermons (his
father was a minister), hurling down denunciations in the manner of the prophet Amos. The
book also tends to be repetitious, as Hedges makes the same general statements over and over.
It's also hard to follow at times as Hedges attempts to stress the connections between
pop culture and social, political. and economic policy. Nor is Hedges a particularly stylish
writer (a sense of humor would help).
His last-second "happy ending" (something like: we're all doomed, but eventually,
somewhere down the line, love will prevail beacuse it's ultimately the strongest power on
earth) is, to say the least, unconvincing.
SO why am I recommending this book? Because in spite of its flaws (and maybe even because
of them), this is a powerful depiction of the state of American society. The book does get to
you in its somewhat clumsy way.
The stomach-turning chapter on trends in porn and their relationship to the torture of
prisoners of war is a particularly sharp piece of analysis, and all of the other chapters do
eventually convince (and depress).
This book will not exactly cheer you up, but at least it will give you an understanding of
where we are (and where we're heading).
"... I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters. ..."
"... "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." ..."
People need to learn, relearn, and talk to others about this. Let's admit it: today's Republicans
& Democrats are just two sides of the same coin. We ought to just call them what they really all
are -- "Neocons."
Both sides need to be replaced by truly independent voters giving strength to an administration
that is neither R nor D, and that should be the Libertarians. Trump is not one, but he's
going to end up making the way for them during his four years.
I'd like to see this: President Rand Paul, VP Tulsi Gabbard, chief of staff Ron Paul, and
Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark, for starters.
It was either Mark Twain or Samuel Clemens who said "In the beginning of a change
the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid
join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
@Priss Factor Yeah, right. Perhaps you should reread your history rather than take it
simply from pop culture.
Also, Serbia folded quickly once US got involved.
Only after Russia abandoned them, and even so, they still held on for quite some time.
This was also when the US forces were more competent.
US held their ground in Korea against millions of Chinese troops.
The "millions" only were perceived so by the Marines during the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on
River because the Chinese troops had achieved almost complete envelopment – in reality,
it was pretty much equal numbers, and American formations shattered would never recover for
the remainder of the war. Although the UN forces did better in the second half, it was
battles like that of Bloody Ridge and Heartbreak Ridge – which were named for
specifically that reason – which proved that total victory was unattainable due to the
casualties that Communist forces could inflict upon the UN.
It was far from a cakewalk.
In strength disposition at this point, the US might be able to win a war against either
Russia or China alone. But they would obviously not allow the other to be destroyed, and any
attack on one of them would result in both of them retaliating.
Its over for the US in terms of unilateral military solutions.
' The defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American
military unit in history The Chinese offensive continued pressing American forces, which lost
Seoul, the South Korean capital. Eighth Army's morale and esprit de corps hit rock bottom, to
where it was widely regarded as a broken, defeated rabble '
' The shootdown of an F-117 stealth aircraft over Kosovo in 1999 served as a wake-up call
for the Air Force NATO never fully succeeded in neutralizing the Serb integrated air defense
system '
'The air campaign over Kosovo severely affected the readiness rates of the United States
Air Force's Air Combat Command during that period many aircraft will have to be replaced
earlier than previously planned, as their planned fatigue life was prematurely expended. PGM
inventories needed to be re-stocked, the warstock of the AGM-86C Conventional Air-Launched
Cruise Missile dropping to 100 or fewer rounds.[11]
Of the more than 25,000 bombs and
missiles expended, nearly 8,500 were PGMs, with the replacement cost estimated at $US1.3
billion.[12] Thus the USAF suffered from virtual attrition of its air force without having
scored a large number of kills in theater. Even if the United States' best estimates of
Serbian casualties are used, the Serbians left Kosovo with a large part of their armored
forces intact '
So the combined might of 19 Nato countries with a population of 900 million vs little
Serbia and its 7 million people a NATO air armada of over 1,000 aircraft and still little
Serbia stood its ground. As for Afghanistan US still hasn't won anything in 16 years. . As Paul Craig Roberts regularly reminds us, the US hasn't won a real war since the
pacific war in ww2. Thanks for the opportunity Mr. Priss hope we can dance again sometime oh and have fun in
Disneyland
"... We are not a rational society. We are a faith-based society. And our temples and crosses are military bases and weaponry, which we export globally. The U.S. has 800 overseas bases, and America dominates the international trade in arms. Meanwhile, our missionaries are our Special Ops troops, which we send to 130 countries, spreading the American gospel. The gospel of war and the gun. ..."
"... A xenophobic form of patriotism exacerbates a religion of violence. Exclusive rather than inclusive, it sets the boundaries of "us" versus "them." Critics and dissenters are cast out and exiled. ..."
"... Our TV shows reinforce our belief in violence and militarism. ..."
"... America is being consumed by a religion of violence and mayhem. We're trapped in a dark maelstrom of death and destruction. Yet how can we repudiate our god of war when we are so busy feeding him? When we talk of "thoughts and prayers" after each tragedy, do we truly know which god we're calling upon? ..."
A few thoughts on violence and military idolatry in America
If you believe the polls,
America is a nation of believers. A nation of faith. But is our faith truly in a pacific god of
love? Or do we instead worship a god of war? Current and past events suggest that too often
Americans place their faith in war and the military. We continue to believe despite the
evidence our belief is both wrongheaded and destructive.
We have a cult-like affection for war and the military. It drives what we see – what
we perceive. Believing is seeing. The military confesses to believe in "progress" in Iraq and
Afghanistan, for example, so we invent metrics that show how we're winning (which is exactly
what we did fifty years ago in Vietnam).
We are not a rational society. We are a faith-based society. And our temples and crosses are
military bases and weaponry, which we export globally. The U.S. has 800 overseas bases, and
America dominates the international
trade in arms. Meanwhile, our missionaries are
our Special Ops troops, which we send to 130 countries, spreading the American gospel. The
gospel of war and the gun.
The icons of American militarism are our weapons. Our warplanes, our drones, big bombs (the
MOAB), the list goes on. They have become the iconic symbols of an idolatry of destruction.
A xenophobic form of patriotism exacerbates a religion of violence. Exclusive rather than
inclusive, it sets the boundaries of "us" versus "them." Critics and dissenters are cast out
and exiled.
Meanwhile, in far-off foreign lands, we reject the reality of ruins and rubble. We couch it
instead in terms of salvation: "we had to destroy the village to save it." It's another aspect
of our evangelical approach to war. It's like being born again. You must tear yourself down
before you're born again in the spirit of Christ. We seem to believe cities must be ruined
before we can declare victory over the enemy.
Consider 9/11/2001. An inward-looking people may have kept the ruins of 9/11 as a monument
to the victims. But not us. That's expensive real estate, and on those ruins we were born
again, building Freedom Tower , exactly 1776 feet in
height. Thus our fall was reinterpreted as rebirth, our defeat as victory, tragedy as triumph.
Even 9/11 itself is now celebrated as a day of patriotism.
Yes, we can reconstruct our own rubble, as we did after 9/11. But will foreign rubble ever
be reconstructed? Cities like Mosul
? Well, who cares? They are not of the body. They are not us. They are outcasts. Let them
survive in what's left of their blasted buildings and homes.
Our TV shows reinforce our belief in violence and militarism. New ones include " The Brave " on NBC, which
begins by focusing on a pretty White female doctor kidnapped by Muslim terrorists and "brave"
efforts to rescue her; " Valor " on the CW channel, featuring lots of
helicopters and flags and automatic weapons; and the rather obvious " SEAL Team " on CBS, with elite Navy SEALs
standing in for the superheroes of the past. If you get tired of watching military heroics on
TV, there's always military-themed "shooter" video games. Indeed, the military experience is
everywhere, even in Madden football, where in "story mode" you can play against quarterback Dan
Marino on an Army base in Iraq. (The field is surrounded by a fortified fence, rocky hills, and
a helicopter pad, among other exotic military features.)
America is being consumed by a religion of violence and mayhem. We're trapped in a dark
maelstrom of death and destruction. Yet how can we repudiate our god of war when we are so busy
feeding him? When we talk of "thoughts and prayers" after each tragedy, do we truly know which
god we're calling upon?
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for
fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
"... The US military understands it has long ago lost the Afghan War but cannot bear the humiliation of admitting it was defeated by lightly-armed mountain tribesmen fighting for their independence. ..."
"... Vietnam was not a 'tragedy,' as the PBS series asserts, but the product of imperial geopolitics. The same holds true for today's Mideast wars. To paraphrase a famous slogan from Vietnam, we destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to make them safe for 'freedom.' ..."
"... The war became aimless and often surreal. We soldiers all knew our senior officers and political leaders were lying. Many soldiers were at the edge of mutiny, like the French Army in 1917. Back in those ancient days, we had expected our political leaders to be men of rectitude who told us the truth. Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor. ..."
"... This same dark cloud hangs over our political landscape today. We have destroyed large parts of the Mideast, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan without a second thought – yet wonder why peoples from these ravaged nations hate us. Now, North Korea seems next. ..."
"... In spite of all, our imperial impulse till throbs. The nightmare Vietnam War in which over 58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. ..."
"... For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't be controlled at a distance ..."
"... So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland. ..."
"... Americans at-large have no power. A small cadre runs things now. Once Americans didn't have a draft to worry over, they vacated the streets and left the dying to the farmers' sons (metaphor for the poor). ..."
"... War after war lost, yet the Generals are still revered, money to the pro-war think tanks is never ending and the revolving door between the Pentagon, White House and defense contractors (and their corporate boards) has never been richer. Doesn't matter the war industry doesn't win wars, the money is just so damned good they can't stop, won't stop. And who is to stop them? These are the folks that kill people, that have a file on each of us. Indeed, it is our only remaining industry, flawed and failed though it may be. It certainly is a rich one. And it IS unstoppable. Completely. Utterly. ..."
"... When the communists gave up and joined the party, our globalist masters realized that they could not only amass further wealth by spreading these things to the former communist bloc and under-exploited non-aligned nations, but they could now squeeze even more profit-margin out of the home territories by wearing down the power of the local workforce at all levels, except, of course, for the very pinnacle, by outsourcing production and even many services to the newly "developing world." ..."
"... Ironically, fighting the communist threat probably kept our leadership more honest than they have been in the new world order since the fall of communism. ..."
"... I know opinions vary on Ken Burns/PBS's "Vietnam" documentary, but what struck me is that we're following the same script in Afghanistan and the Middle East as we were in Vietnam and expecting a different (i.e., more favorable) outcome. The script being "pacification" through providing medicine, foodstuffs, soccer balls and American smiles to the local populations combined with placing massive amounts of ordnance on targets deemed hostile. It didn't win hearts and minds then nor is it now. ..."
"... The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who knew nothing, ..."
"... We have legions of McNamara's calling the shots today. They are called neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. The big brains of the Ivy league do seem to excel at steering us into icebergs time and again. ..."
"... What don't you understand about Clausewitz's dictum "war is the mere continuation of politics with other means"? War is what you do when you can't achieve your political objectives by other means. The United States' political objective in Vietnam was to prevent the American satrapy in the south being re-united by the nationalists in the north. So, where the f ** k is South Vietnam? The United States might believe it won every battle (slight exaggeration) but it still lost the American war. ..."
"... I bet they didn't cover the mutiny in the ranks which is the main reason the US had to withdraw because of a "broken army." That included fragging, mission refusal, and an overall negative attitude as you suggest. Now we have a volunteer army, a warrior class, which changes that dynamic. ..."
"... Too many of the volunteers are really economic draftees. You can have plenty of discipline problems with volunteers, I've seen it up close and personal, although never reaching the level of mutiny. ..."
The current 17-year old US war in Afghanistan has uncanny resemblances to the Vietnam War. In
Kabul and Saigon, the US installed puppet governments that command no loyalty except from minority
groups. They were steeped in drugs and corruption, and kept in power by intensive use of American
air power. As in Vietnam, the US military and civilian effort in Afghanistan is led by a toxic mixture
of deep ignorance and imperial arrogance.
The US military understands it has long ago lost the Afghan War but cannot bear the humiliation
of admitting it was defeated by lightly-armed mountain tribesmen fighting for their independence.
In Vietnam, Washington could not admit that young Vietnamese guerillas and regulars had bested the
US armed forces thanks to their indomitable courage and intelligent tactics. No one outside Vietnam
cared about the 2-3 million civilians killed in the conflict
Unfortunately, the PBS program fails to convey this imperial arrogance and the ignorance that
impelled Washington into the war – the same foolhardy behavior that sent US forces into Somalia,
Afghanistan and Iraq and perhaps may do so in a second Korean War. The imperial spirit still burns
hot in Washington among those who don't know or understand the outside world. The lessons of all
these past conflicts have been forgotten: Washington's collective memory is only three years long.
Vietnam was not a 'tragedy,' as the PBS series asserts, but the product of imperial geopolitics.
The same holds true for today's Mideast wars. To paraphrase a famous slogan from Vietnam, we destroyed
Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to make them safe for 'freedom.'
One of the craziest things about the Vietnam War has rarely been acknowledged: even at peak deployment,
the 550,000 US soldiers in Vietnam were outnumbered by North Vietnamese fighting units.
That's because the huge US military had only about 50,000 real combat troops in the field. The
other half million were support troops performing logistical and administrative functions behind
the lines: a vast army of typists, cooks, truck drivers, psychologists, and pizza-makers.
Too much tail to teeth, as the army calls it. For Thanksgiving, everyone got turkey dinner with
cranberry sauce, choppered into the remotest outposts. But there were simply not enough riflemen
to take on the Viet Cong and tough North Vietnamese Army whose Soviet M1954 130mm howitzer with a
27 km range were far superior to the US Army's outdated WWII artillery.
Poor generalship, mediocre officers, and lack of discipline ensured that the US war effort in
Vietnam would become and remain a mess. Stupid, pointless attacks against heavily defended hills
inflicted huge casualties on US troops and eroded morale.
The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who
knew nothing, turned the war into a macabre joke. This was the dumbest command decision since Louis
XV put his girlfriend Madame de Pompadour in charge of his armies.
We soldiers, both in Vietnam and Stateside, scorned the war and mocked our officers. It didn't
help that much of the US force in 'Nam' were often stoned and rebellious.
The January 30, 1968 Tet Offensive put the kibosh on US plans to pursue the war – and even take
it into south-west China. Tet was a military victory of sorts for the US (and why not, with thousands
of warplanes and B-52 heavy bombers) but a huge political/psychological victory for the Communists
in spite of their heavy losses.
I vividly recall standing with a group of GI's reading a typed report on our company barracks
advising that the Special Forces camp in the Central Highlands to which many of our company had been
assigned for immediate duty had been overrun at Tet, and all its defenders killed. After that, the
US Army's motto was 'stay alive, avoid combat, and smoke another reefer.'
The war became aimless and often surreal. We soldiers all knew our senior officers and political
leaders were lying. Many soldiers were at the edge of mutiny, like the French Army in 1917. Back
in those ancient days, we had expected our political leaders to be men of rectitude who told us the
truth. Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor.
This same dark cloud hangs over our political landscape today. We have destroyed large parts
of the Mideast, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan without a second thought – yet wonder why peoples
from these ravaged nations hate us. Now, North Korea seems next.
Showing defiance to Washington brought B-52 bombers, toxic Agent Orange defoliants and endless
storms of napalm and white phosphorus that would burn through one's body until it hit bone.
In spite of all, our imperial impulse till throbs. The nightmare Vietnam War in which over
58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. So we can now repeat the
same fatal errors again without shame, remorse or understanding.
(Republished from
EricMargolis.com
by permission of author or representative)
For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that
they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't
be controlled at a distance. Of course the morale of US soldiers ends up being bad when they
realize there's nothing for them to fight for. No one wants to die to help some politician save
face. Insofar as the current much publicized Vietnam documentary goes there doesn't seem to be
anything that's new or original. All of it has been known for many years to anyone who would bother
to brush up on the subject. The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the
past and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority.
For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they
live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't
be controlled at a distance. Of course the morale of US soldiers ends up being bad when they realize
there's nothing for them to fight for. No one wants to die to help some politician save face.
Insofar as the current much publicized Vietnam documentary goes there doesn't seem to be anything
that's new or original. All of it has been known for many years to anyone who would bother to
brush up on the subject. The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past
and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority.
So whose name gets to be the last American killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc? Dying for
a place on the memorial, boys. "The war was being run by a bunch of four-star clowns who were
going to end up giving the whole circus away."
Some things don't change- I wonder if Rand has a new copy of the Pentagon Papers regarding
post 9/11. And a new Nixon in office .he vowed to get out too -- and yet pushed more into it simply
amazing.
@Sam McGowan First, I was heavily involved in Vietnam from 1965 to 1970. Second, I have written
extensively about the war and read the books. The fact is that the US didn't "lose" the war, the
left-wing presidents that got us into it, JFK and LBJ, has no intention of defeating the communist
insurgency, they just wanted "to contain it". Cam Ranh Bay and made a speech in which he commented
to the troops present that he wanted them to "nail the coonskin to the wall." Richard Nixon began
withdrawing troops immediately after his inauguration and gave Abrams an edict to "reduce American
casualties" shortly afterwards. In fact, Vietnam as well as Korea - as well as other wars around
the world - were continuations of World War II, which Americans thought ended when the Japanese
surrendered. By the way, I am not watching Ken Burn's latest left-wing propaganda piece nor do
I intend to. I don't need him to tell me what happened in Southeast Asia, I was there. Save your
senile hot air for the other menopausal drunks drooling in the VFW lounge. The conscript US military
completely collapsed fragging, rampant drug usage, desertion, abject morale, chain of command
disintegration, and the usual commissioned officer cowardice. Any western country stupid enough
to pursue a land war in Asia deserves what it gets .inevitable defeat and humiliation.
I don't think CucKen Burns is entirely wrong in empathizing with those who got involved. Sure,
there were warmongers. Sure, they were profiteers. Sure, there were power-maniacs. Sure, there
were paranoids.
But Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were not particularly sadistic or cruel men. Eisenhower
could be aloof and mean. Kennedy could be vain. Johnson was plenty corrupt. Nixon could be nasty.
But were not psychos or radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.
As for military men, well, whaddya expect? They were trained to think of the world in terms
of military power. As for CIA, we are talking of more sinister elements, but let's keep in mind
that Soviets had their intelligence organizations and methods of subversion. Let's remember Soviets
had infiltrated FDR's government and pulled dirty trick. Even got the Bomb during Truman era.
Also, Soviets could be utterly ruthless in their own empire.
Now, would the US have intervened in Vietnam if the nation was to be united by a non-communist
nationalist? Probably not. US didn't intervene in Indonesia when it gained independence under
Sukarno. The only reason US got involved was because Ho was a Soviet-leaning communist. And even
though Domino theory has been 'debunked', it made sense at the time. Even Soviets believed in
it. Mao believed in it. Soviets believed that sign of US weakness could spread the revolution
all around. Che Guevara believed in the Domino Theory. Communist victory over Cuba, he thought,
would herald spread of communism all over Latin America, and then it would spread into US itself.
Che really believed this, which is why he died in Bolivia trying to start an insurgency.
Also, in a way, Domino Theory did come true, at least for awhile. Not so much in Southeast
Asia, though Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. And keep in mind Indonesia almost could
have become communist if the Peking-backed coup had succeeded. And keep in mind it took lots of
British brutality and ruthlessness to stem the communist movement in Malaysia. Brits built huge
hamlets and concentration camps. They took extreme measures.
At any rate, communism did continue to spread after the fall of Vietnam. US power seemed to
be declining. And not only communists were emboldened by US defeat in Vietnam. Vietnam became
a metaphor for anti-Americanism all over the world. May 68 movement that almost brought down the
French government was fired up partly by Vietnam(though it began as some silly stuff about dorms
and sex). Vietnam was bigger than Algeria because US was seen as the Great Power. French defeat
wasn't all that surprising in Algeria. So, after US left from Vietnam, there was a sense that
David could beat American Goliath. Iran regime fell and Islamists came to power. Afghanistan turned
communist, and Soviets felt emboldened in rolling in tanks. Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola turned
communist. Communists won in Nicaragua and almost won in El Salvador. There was a raging Maoist
insurgency in Peru. Allende came to power through elections, and he was pro-Soviet and pro-Cuba.
He was removed only by US-backed coup that did as much harm as good. It blackened US reputation
around the world. So, in a way, the Domino Theory wasn't all wrong. Vietnam did signal a sea-change
in world politics at least for awhile.
In the end, communism wasn't defeated by the US. It defeated itself. Soviet economics just
couldn't sustain the empire. Its subsidies to Cuba were costly. Its support of Marxist regimes
in Africa drained Soviet economy. USSR had to prop up Iron Curtain nations economically. And Vietnamese
communism was a disaster. Maoism was hell on earth. Some might say communism failed cuz Capitalist
West froze the communists out of world trade. But considering that the communist world encompassed
resource-rich Soviet Empire, people-rich China, and lots of nations willing to do business with
communist nations -- India and Arab nations had good relations with Soviets -- , the real reason
for failure of communism was it was its own worst enemy.
And when we look at the aftermath of communist victory in Indochina -- brutal repression in
Vietnam and Laos and psychotic democide in Cambodia -- and when we consider how even communist
nations like China and Vietnam switched to market economics, it's clear that US was on the right
side of history on many issues.
Also, the conflict was complicated because both sides were aggressors. US was the aggressor
in working with the French to divide Vietnam in half, in occupying the southern half, and dropping
bombs and using Viet women as whores. But the communists were also aggressors because they tried
to impose a form of Stalinism on people in the South, most of whom didn't want communism. After
all, many more people fled the north to the south than vice versa. Why? There is something prison-like
about communism. The commissars never leave you alone. Also, North Vietnamese leaders, though
inspired and patriotic, were utterly ruthless in their own way, willing to sacrifice any number
of people for victory just like Japanese militarists were willing to Go All the Way instead of
calling it quits to save lives.
Still, in retrospect, Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot, a legendary figure much beloved by
many Viets. And for that reason, US shouldn't have intervened, and the whole mess could have been
avoided.
CucKen Burns makes my skin crawl, but at his best, he can look at both sides of the issue instead
of going for b/w version of history with good guys vs bad guys.
That said, maybe his position reflects globalism. As Proglobalists now control the US, the
neo-Pax-Americana is about the spread of agendas favored by the likes of CucKen Burns, like homomania,
Jewish Power, anti-nationalism, and Afromania. Today's progs want the world to become neo-Americanized.
And in Vietnam, as Linh Dinh reported, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery.
So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the
globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland.
After all, where was CucKen Burns when Obama and Hillary were destroying Libya, Ukraine, Syria,
and etc. Where were he and his ilk when Jews were cooking up New Cold War with Russia with hysteria
that would make McCarthy blush?
"The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past and the answer
seems to be no for the vast majority."
Americans at-large have no power. A small cadre runs things now. Once Americans didn't
have a draft to worry over, they vacated the streets and left the dying to the farmers' sons (metaphor
for the poor). That's all it is. The damage done to the economy, the sheer quantities of
cash vacuumed up from the rest of the country and showered over the Washington DC region escapes
the imagination of us out here in the country with our local issues and problems. These, rooted
in the sheer theft of our taxes and handed over to the war-mongers of DC because there simply
isn't enough left over after feeding The Beast in Washington. We have aircraft carriers that can't
launch aircraft, planes that won't fly, weapons that won't work and wrong strategies followed
in war-fighting and procurement, yet still, the theft goes on.
War after war lost, yet the Generals are still revered, money to the pro-war think tanks
is never ending and the revolving door between the Pentagon, White House and defense contractors
(and their corporate boards) has never been richer. Doesn't matter the war industry doesn't win
wars, the money is just so damned good they can't stop, won't stop. And who is to stop them? These
are the folks that kill people, that have a file on each of us. Indeed, it is our only remaining
industry, flawed and failed though it may be. It certainly is a rich one. And it IS unstoppable.
Completely. Utterly.
@Sam McGowan Concur all, McGowan, good takes. Yeah, my Pop was into Naval spook communications
and messaging, he'd pick up the WashPost off the driveway and see various and sundry in the paper
lying and white-washing the effort and just be wild by the time he left for work. He knew the
carriers were having no success, he knew the air-war was a mess, he knew the Marines were getting
killed all over the country. People that knew the truth from the inside hadda keep their traps
shut.
By the time I joined up for a 6 year dose of USN carrier decks in 1976 I got the scoop from
a few of our officers, almost all of whom had flown with VA35 over Vietnam in A-6′s. Clusterfuck,
they could then acknowledge just those few years later, only the most junior officers hadn't served
in the air war over Vietnam. And they had good stories that pointed out the folly throughout.
Now? The military is just a revenue-stream, nothing produced, much destroyed to the enrichment
of a few insiders.
Sir
Recently came across some startling statistics about men who served in Vietnam like you and me.
Of the 2.7 million who served only 850,000 are still alive at last census!!!!!! 700,500 died prematurely
between 1995 census and 2000 census. No country for old men .
"And in Vietnam, as Linh Dinh reported, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery.
So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the
globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland."
Bingo! The only problem is that the globalists are now using the opportunity to also wear down
the populations of the home territories as well. The only reason our national economic imperialism
wasn't enough of a raging success (don't get me wrong by any rational measure it was) was that
it was kept in check by the opposing communist bloc, and still America managed to conquer the
so-called free world with Coca Cola, McDonalds, Hollywood Inc., etc.
When the communists gave up and joined the party, our globalist masters realized that they
could not only amass further wealth by spreading these things to the former communist bloc and
under-exploited non-aligned nations, but they could now squeeze even more profit-margin out of
the home territories by wearing down the power of the local workforce at all levels, except, of
course, for the very pinnacle, by outsourcing production and even many services to the newly "developing
world."
Ironically, fighting the communist threat probably kept our leadership more honest than
they have been in the new world order since the fall of communism.
"No one in Washington seemed to know that China and the Soviet Union had split and become
bitter enemies. As ever, our foreign human intelligence was lousy."
They knew of the rift that had grown since 1960 or so, but they didn't believe it until the
short border war in 1969. The same way that a number of indicators suggested as early as 1983
that the USSR was imploding, but the menace of the USSR was used to keep justifying a buildup
and procurement of new systems until and even beyond its actual implosion a few years later.
I know opinions vary on Ken Burns/PBS's "Vietnam" documentary, but what struck me is that
we're following the same script in Afghanistan and the Middle East as we were in Vietnam and expecting
a different (i.e., more favorable) outcome. The script being "pacification" through providing
medicine, foodstuffs, soccer balls and American smiles to the local populations combined with
placing massive amounts of ordnance on targets deemed hostile. It didn't win hearts and minds
then nor is it now.
The generals keep telling us that with just a few more antibiotics, soccer balls and troops
victory is around the bend.
Hindsight's always 20/20, but to be fair a military force in Vietnam did seem like the right
thing do at least in the early years. Any de-escalation and/or withdrawals would have been perceived
by a rabidly anti-communist population as surrendering to communist aggression and political suicide
for any president proposing it.
The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all
who knew nothing,
We have legions of McNamara's calling the shots today. They are called neoconservatives
and liberal interventionists. The big brains of the Ivy league do seem to excel at steering us
into icebergs time and again.
As it was former allies Vietnam and China briefly fought each other in 1979 and Vietnam didn't
have the desire or the ability to project power much beyond Cambodia and Laos.
"We really believed that if the US did not make a stand in Vietnam the Soviets and Chinese
would overrun all of South Asia."
India played a big role in shaping this narrative. Just five years ago before 1967 China finally
responded to India's creeping land grab after years of trying to warn New Delhi's to stop its
'Forward Policy' by launching a massive anticipatory strike into India. India was defeated militarily
but India was able to fool the world that India was a hapless victim against an agressive China
when in fact the reverse is true.
@Jim Christian A bit off topic, but, since I know that you had naval experience, any take
on why Navy ships keep colliding with merchantmen? Is it reduced competence because of racial
and sexual preferences, or overworked sailors because deployed ships are short-staffed as a result
of pregnancies? Or is it just a run of bad luck? I've read some different theories but I've seen
you post often enough to know that you'll have an informed opinion.
@Sam McGowanWhat don't you understand about Clausewitz's dictum "war is the mere continuation
of politics with other means"? War is what you do when you can't achieve your political objectives
by other means. The United States' political objective in Vietnam was to prevent the American
satrapy in the south being re-united by the nationalists in the north. So, where the f ** k is
South Vietnam? The United States might believe it won every battle (slight exaggeration) but it
still lost the American war.
@Diversity Heretic The military is off-kilter all over. Navigation? Routine. Ought to be.
Not anymore. Procurement? Driven by inertia and the corruption of planners that know a carrier's
planes are useless if the ship has to stand off 500-1000 miles because of a cruise missile environment
that they KNOW every third-world shitbox has been building for 30 years now, starting with the
Norks. From aircraft to ships, a complete clusterfuck.
Personnel? Ya gotta be shitting me, right? Between the sexism, reverse-racism and the cultural
kookiness from the top of a terrorized Central Command and throughout the military, right down
to the pretty little Blonde Hispanic Black Dwarf tranny just dying to terrorize said command with
a complaint, we really haven't much good to say about our staffing. It's not a meritocracy anymore,
hasn't been since Reagan. The entire thing is sitting there waiting to be taken down and humiliated.
And still? We sprinkle the trillions onto the DC region, make the war planners rich, we still
lionize Generals and Admirals that haven't won shit in 75 years and we cycle them through the
think tanks and corporate boards of the defense contractors and make THEM rich too. Then we even
put them in charge at the White House, having discarded the notion of Congressional approval for
the wars they "fight" in our names. And they start wars. And finally, the notion that we have
civilian control of our military is long gone. We are a Junta. There is a coup ongoing, two or
more in our past and we're no more than a broke but dangerous and heavily armed danger to the
rest of the world run by the thugs of the Pentagon, the think tanks, the defense contractors and
the lazy sloth of Congress, who is supposed to keep this shit straight and Constitutional. Doom.
Yes, the word doom comes to mind.
@anonymous re: "No one wants to die to help some politician save face."
I don't have a teevee, but I bet they didn't cover the mutiny in the ranks which is the
main reason the US had to withdraw because of a "broken army." That included fragging, mission
refusal, and an overall negative attitude as you suggest. Now we have a volunteer army, a warrior
class, which changes that dynamic.
One man's opinion. I do wish someone would show me where I'm wrong, but I spent too many years
down in DC doing their tech stuff after I left the Navy (too many women that couldn't, at that
point in 82, go to sea) and so they only had more sea duty because the shore billets were all
taken in their haste to "integrate" women into the Navy. Even instructor duty for Naval Air Maintenance
was hosted by women that had never served a day in carrier air, training the young mice how to
do business on a flight deck. They did offer me, for variety, another four year hitch in a WestPac
squadron aboard one damned carrier deck or another. Already having done 5, I said no thanks and
went back home to Virginia. And so I got familiar with the workings of the spooks, Booze, Allen,
Heritage, Cato, Brookings, the Pentagon, NSA, FBI, Quantico, there were hundreds of them, most
with two or three names in the chain of title. I did their phones for decades, they're psychos,
they're paranoid, everything classified and spooky and ooga-booga. Worthless ants on a big log
and they each think they're steering it down the river.
Bunch of fucking Frank Burns's is what they are..Cheers.
There never was a communist threat. Not since at least the 1920s, when Stalin defeated Trotsky.
Trotsky wanted world revolution. Stalin, for all his bloodthirsty antics in Russia, realised this
was all nonsense. He just wanted Socialism in One Country, developing the country economically.
He wasn't really interested in the outside world.
In the 1930s he was willing to cooperate with right wing western governments till they did
a deal with Hitler in 1938. He was never interested in invading countries to grab land and resources.
Whenever he did so, Poland in 1939, or Eastern Europe post 1945, it was for security reasons.
The part of Poland he occupied in 1939 had been taken from Russia by force in 1920. It was inhabited
by 1o million White Russians and Ukrainians and no Poles.
Wissing's book "Funding the enemy" details the totally corrupt Afghan government and is a compelling
argument why we should pull out at once and needs to be read by anyone with half a brain. I served
in Vietnam also, in 1967, and its deja vu all over again.
@The Alarmist Having been on – site at the time (North Tonkin Gulf), I can tell you that China
gave U.S.N. units free rein over those waters, including Chinese waters. The fix was in. In 1969
onwards. China and Viet Nam were NEVER friends. Did CIA realize this? I don't know.
Anyways, expect the US to keep on wasting money in Afghanistan (and Pakistan and Tajikistan)
until it gets bankrupted by the next Big War!
Or until all the routes into Afghanistan are blocked. At the moment, the only route still open
passes through Pakistan, and that may close at any time.
Of the 58,220 Americans who were sacrificed by the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War,
270 were Jewish. That's approximately 0.46 percent of the total number of American kids who died,
or less than a half of one-percent.
"Statistical Information About Casualties of the Vietnam War"
@Grandpa Charlie The Japanese trained their naval cadets using a mock Pearl Harbor type exercise
annually for a fair number of years prior to WW2. The Russo-Japanese War of 1905 began with a
Japanese surprise attack. You have the unmitigated gall to attack Margolis as an establishment
mouthpiece when you yourself are whitewashhing the "sainted" FDR. No prudent military planner
would absolutely assume that the attack would come in one particular place, whether the Phillipines,
Pearl, or elsewhere.
@Don BaconToo many of the volunteers are really economic draftees. You can have plenty
of discipline problems with volunteers, I've seen it up close and personal, although never reaching
the level of mutiny.
@Capn Mike That is interesting to me. As is the Margolis artictle, never knew he had been
a USA soldier, very interesting article. Thought he was a Canada person.
I have a question for you, Capn Mike.
If the PRC had allowed the USA free rein in Gulf of Tonkin, where were the supply lines to
the Nth. Viet military and Viet Cong?
Must it not still have been overland from PRC at that time you say (1969)?
I don't for a moment believe that the 'saintly' President John Kennedy planned to end the
war but was assassinated by dark, rightwing forces, as is claimed. This is a charming legend.
Richard Nixon, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson all feared that a withdrawal from Vietnam would lose
them the next election. Republicans were still snarling over 'who lost China'.
I didn't like Kennedy either, but go back and reread the newspapers from the early days of
the Kennedy administration. The oval office was bugged, and the information leaked in ways to
embarrass Kennedy and UN Ambassador Adelai Stevenson. There is only one way that could have happened.
Eisenhower installed those bugs before he left. These same bugs brought down Nixon in the Watergate
crisis. The swamp wanted war, and they pulled the rug out from under both presidents as soon as
they brought peace.
And a new Nixon in office .he vowed to get out too- and yet pushed more into it simply amazing.
He promised to get out and he did get us out. The peace treaty was announced just before the
election in 1972. He knew it was his only hope for re-election. The Vietnamese disputed some of
the terms, and that resulted in the Christmas bombing that year. The American withdrawal began
in January 1973.
Trump promised to get us out of the Middle East. We should give him some rope. Maybe he hangs
himself, or just maybe he can pull it off. He will need to be re-elected in three years.
However, the US foreign policy keeps holocausting the 3-rd world and lately the 2 -cond world.
The holocausts keep coming from US foreign policy of "exceptionalism" = "Nazi Übermensch"="the
chosen ones" over this planet, many executed by the CIA-Nazi's:
The Syrian holocaust
The Yemen holocaust
The Ukranïan holocaust (Euromaidan) by Poroshenko/Nuland neo-nazi"s.
The Libyan holocaust
The Irak holocaust
The Afghanistan holocaust
The Belgrad holocaust
The Indonesian holocaust (Kissiger e.a.)
The Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand holocaust (Kissinger e.a)
The Korean holocaust
During WWII:
The Jewish/Polish/Russian holocaust by Nazi's funded by Wallstreet/London bankers
The German holocaust (Die Rheinweisen lager) by US army Morgenthau plan.
Before WWII:
The Ukranian and Russain holocausts 1921-22, 1932-33 (holodomor) by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin.
All these, were and are financed by the Wallstreet elite owners, the Billionaires who are mega-fascists,
eugenic and satanic in character. Their credo is GREED.
Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor.
A couple of the biggest lies were exposed, but the myths still live that the US government
is an effective and dependable force for peace and freedom, and that the US military is an institution
of dignity worthy of honor.
And people still put their faith (or is it hope) in the heartless cynics ( eunichs, really)
with no balls, fewer brains, no soul, and even less honor.
Th at reckless demonstration of force on the border is the
essence of Obama administration approach to Russia. With the foreign policy dominated by people
from CIA
Notable quotes:
"... Americans need to stop and look again at the Cuban Missile Crisis. If he had listened to the generals Washington would have been vaporized and we would have had full scale nuclear war. ..."
"... Oh, and by the way, whoever gave the order to participate in such an "in your face" demonstration 300m from the border of a country that already fears for their security, should be COURT MARTIALED!! THIS WHOLE THING IS GOING TO TURN OUT REALLY BAD FOR BOTH COUNTRIES!!!!!! ..."
"... Mutually assured provocation. ..."
"... The U.S. has been "at war" 93% of the time since 1776. 97% if counting the proxy wars. ..."
"... If the EU and US were interested in any Peace they would not be arming and funding terrorist groups like ISIS / Al-Qaeda but would actually fight them. ..."
MOSCOW - U.S. military combat vehicles paraded Wednesday
through an Estonian city that juts into Russia, a symbolic act that highlighted the stakes for
both sides amid the worst tensions between the West and Russia since the Cold War.
The armored
personnel carriers and other U.S. Army vehicles that rolled through the streets of Narva, a
border city separated by a narrow frontier from Russia, were a dramatic reminder of the new
military confrontation in Eastern Europe.
Americans need to stop and look again at the Cuban Missile Crisis. If he had listened to the
generals Washington would have been vaporized and we would have had full scale nuclear war.
It was only after they did all they could to try to convince Kennedy to bomb Cuba, and many
years had passed, that it was found out that the nuclear missiles were operational.
If the
Generals (especially Lemay) had been listened to history would have been a WHOLE LOT
different!
Another widely unknown fact was that it was not a case of the Russian simply
backing down. We gave up missiles in Turkey in return for the removal of the Russian
missiles.
So what does any of this have to do with today? Then we had Kennedy who had the strength to
do what was right and the foreign affairs intelligence to override his generals and do what
was right. Today we have "The Community Organizer" who has to find the wisdom to do what's
right.
Oh, and by the way, whoever gave the order to participate in such an "in your face"
demonstration 300m from the border of a country that already fears for their security, should
be COURT MARTIALED!! THIS WHOLE THING IS GOING TO TURN OUT REALLY BAD FOR BOTH COUNTRIES!!!!!!
"The United States has sent hundreds of military personnel to joint NATO exercises in the
Baltics". Hundreds? We sent "hundreds" of "personnel" (of whom only a small proportion were
probably combat soldiers)? And that is supposed to intimidate Putin? ...
What a load of bull crap. Most of the people in the UKraine voted against having anything to
do with the West controlled EU because they knew they would be raped and pillaged like that
has been done to them since the West overthrew their elected government. This vote of the
people against the EU was what sparked the US over throw of the Ukraine.
The US had the new Ukraine leader already selected for the take over two months before we
over threw their governement.
Not even two weeks after the over throw the US was already talking about starting to frak for
gas there .
This take over is all about controlling Russia and pushing Russia into corner and to try to
force Russais into another World War when Russia did nothing wrong but bow to the wishes of
the people in Crimea and try to protect their people and assets.
The real criminal here is the US and the EU. ... more See More Like
Share
NATO is a defense organization. Why is Russia. "NOT" wanting neighbors to have adequate
defenses? An Even bigger question; Why do Russian neighbors feel a need to join a defense
organization?
Frazzled2 3/9/2015 9:06 PM EDT
Russia LOST 24 MILLION people the last time the west moved up to their borders. Remember how
we felt when we lost 3000 on 9/11? how about the 2500 or so 12/7/1941, for that matter how
about when we simply had Russian missiles pointed at us in Cuba??
WE still haven't gotten
over the effects of either, so imagine how Russia feels about 24 million DEAD and US combat
troops right on their borders. I hope that maybe those FACTS puts a little perspective on
this, but I doubt it......
Lets all chant together as we watch American and Russian cities go up in a mushroom cloud,
"USA USA USA"
if one Russian isn't afraid to stand with a flag on your parade, think that will be if we
get up all. we want the peace, but we will be able to protect ourselves
Arreb 3/9/2015 11:06 AM EDT [Edited]
The trouble is the US and EU have never has been intersted in peace but only control of every
country. This is why they over throw any world government who refuses to join the EU.
We saw this in Syria, Egypt, Iran, other countries as well in the Ukraine and they are not
done yet.
If the EU and US were interested in any Peace they would not be arming and funding terrorist
groups like ISIS / Al-Qaeda but would actually fight them.
Russia defended Europe from the Mongols, the Turks, from fascism and liberated from Napoleon.
Russia allowed without blood disconnect from its territory of Poland, Finland, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbadzhana, Moldova, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan. Russia helped to reunite Germany. Russia defended in 2008 from Georgia and
genocide on its part of the Orthodox Ossetians. Crimea hundreds of years was Russian
territory, Russian and live there.
Crimeans happily separated from the Ukraine. US $ 5
billion overthrew the legitimate government of Ukraine and put him in the leadership of the
military junta. Ukrainian fascists beginning of genocide against Russian speaking population
in the Donbas and Lugansk, Russian volunteers help self-defense forces of the People's
Republic of Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic. Russian-speaking population is oppressed
in Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov. MH-17 downed Ukrainian military fighters, for what
would provoke hatred of Russia.
Now NATO is defiantly holds military march near the border
with Russia. This unfriendly and can have extremely negative consequences.
"... As part of his own contribution to that 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. ..."
"... Even when defeated or fought to a draw, as in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's research matrix has demonstrated a recurring resilience that could turn disaster into further technological advance. ..."
"... The Vietnam War, for example, was a thoroughgoing tactical failure, yet it would also prove a technological triumph for the military-industrial complex. Although most Americans remember only the Army's soul-destroying ground combat in the villages of South Vietnam, the Air Force fought the biggest air war in military history there and, while it too failed dismally and destructively, it turned out to be a crucial testing ground for a revolution in robotic weaponry. ..."
"... At a cost of $800 million a year, Operation Igloo White laced that narrow mountain corridor with 20,000 acoustic, seismic, and thermal sensors that sent signals to four EC-121 communications aircraft circling ceaselessly overhead. ..."
"... However, after more than 100,000 North Vietnamese troops with tanks, trucks, and artillery somehow moved through that sensor field undetected for a massive offensive in 1972, the Air Force had to admit that its $6 billion "electronic battlefield" was an unqualified failure ..."
"... In the pressure cooker of history's largest air war, the Air Force also transformed an old weapon, the "Firebee" target drone , into a new technology that would rise to significance three decades later. By 1972, the Air Force could send an "SC/TV" drone, equipped with a camera in its nose, up to 2,400 miles across communist China or North Vietnam while controlling it via a low-resolution television image. The Air Force also made aviation history by test firing the first missile from one of those drones. ..."
"... To effect this technological transformation, starting in 2009 the Pentagon planned to spend $55 billion annually to develop robotics for a data-dense interface of space, cyberspace, and terrestrial battle space. ..."
"... By 2025, the United States will likely deploy advanced aerospace and cyberwarfare to envelop the planet in a robotic matrix theoretically capable of blinding entire armies or atomizing an individual insurgent. ..."
"... Within a decade, the Pentagon apparently hopes to patrol the entire planet ceaselessly via a triple-canopy aerospace shield that would reach from sky to space and be secured by an armada of drones with lethal missiles and Argus-eyed sensors, monitored through an electronic matrix and controlled by robotic systems. It's even possible to take you on a tour of the super-secret realm where future space wars will be fought, if the Pentagon's dreams become reality, by exploring both DARPA websites and those of its various defense contractors. ..."
In 2009, building on advances in digital surveillance under the Bush administration, Obama
launched the U.S. Cyber
Command. Its headquarters were set up inside the National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade,
Maryland, and a cyberwar center staffed by 7,000 Air Force employees was established at
Lackland Air Base in Texas. Two years later, the Pentagon moved beyond conventional combat on
air, land, or sea to declare
cyberspace both an offensive and defensive "operational domain." In August, despite his
wide-ranging attempt to purge the government of anything connected to Barack Obama's "legacy,"
President Trump
implemented his predecessor's long-delayed plan to separate that cyber command from the NSA
in a bid to "strengthen our cyberspace operations."
And what is all this technology being prepared for? In study after study, the intelligence
community , the Pentagon , and
related think
tanks have been unanimous in identifying the main threat to future U.S. global hegemony as
a rival power with an expanding economy, a strengthening military, and global ambitions: China,
the home of those denizens of the Gobi Desert who would, in that old Buck Rogers
fable, destroy Washington four centuries from now. Given that America's economic preeminence is
fading fast, breakthroughs in "information warfare" might indeed prove Washington's best bet
for extending its global hegemony further into this century -- but don't count on it, given the
history of techno-weaponry in past wars.
Techno-Triumph in Vietnam
Ever since the Pentagon with its 17 miles of corridors was completed in 1943, that massive
bureaucratic maze has presided over a creative fusion of science and industry that President
Dwight Eisenhower would dub "the military-industrial complex" in his farewell address to the
nation in 1961. "We can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense," he
told the American people.
"We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions" sustained
by a "technological revolution" that is "complex and costly." As part of his own contribution
to that 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.
For 70 years, this close alliance between the Pentagon and major defense contractors has
produced an unbroken succession of "wonder weapons" that at least theoretically gave it a
critical edge in all major military domains. Even when defeated or fought to a draw, as in
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's research matrix has demonstrated a recurring
resilience that could turn disaster into further technological advance.
The Vietnam War, for example, was a thoroughgoing tactical failure, yet it would also prove
a technological triumph for the military-industrial complex. Although most Americans remember
only the Army's soul-destroying ground combat in the villages of South Vietnam, the Air Force
fought the biggest air war in military history there and, while it too failed dismally and
destructively, it turned out to be a crucial testing ground for a revolution in robotic
weaponry.
To stop truck convoys that the North Vietnamese were sending through southern Laos into
South Vietnam, the Pentagon's techno-wizards combined a network of sensors, computers, and
aircraft in a coordinated electronic bombing campaign that, from 1968 to 1973, dropped more
than a million tons of munitions -- equal to the total tonnage for the whole Korean War -- in
that limited area. At a cost of $800 million a year, Operation Igloo White laced
that narrow mountain corridor with 20,000 acoustic, seismic, and thermal sensors that sent
signals to four EC-121 communications aircraft circling ceaselessly overhead.
At a U.S. air base just across the Mekong River in Thailand, Task Force Alpha deployed two
powerful IBM 360/65 mainframe computers, equipped with history's first visual display monitors,
to translate all those sensor signals into "an illuminated line of
light" and so launch jet fighters over the Ho Chi Minh Trail where computers discharged
laser-guided bombs automatically. Bristling with antennae and filled with the latest computers,
its massive concrete bunker seemed, at the time, a futuristic marvel to a visiting Pentagon
official who spoke
rapturously about "being swept up in the beauty and majesty of the Task Force Alpha
temple."
However, after more than 100,000 North Vietnamese troops with tanks, trucks, and artillery
somehow moved through that sensor field undetected for a massive offensive in 1972, the Air
Force had to
admit that its $6 billion "electronic battlefield" was an unqualified failure. Yet that
same bombing campaign would prove to be the first crude step toward a future electronic
battlefield for unmanned robotic warfare.
In the pressure cooker of history's largest air war, the Air Force also transformed an old
weapon, the "Firebee" target
drone , into a new technology that would rise to significance three decades later. By 1972,
the Air Force could send an "SC/TV" drone, equipped with a camera in its nose, up to 2,400
miles across communist China or North Vietnam while controlling it via a low-resolution
television image. The Air Force also made aviation history by test firing the first missile
from one of those drones.
The air war in Vietnam was also an impetus for the development of the Pentagon's global
telecommunications satellite system, another important first. After the Initial Defense
Satellite Communications System launched seven orbital satellites in 1966,
ground terminals in Vietnam started transmitting high-resolution aerial surveillance photos to
Washington -- something NASA called a
"revolutionary development." Those images proved so useful that the Pentagon quickly launched an additional 21
satellites and soon had the first system that could communicate from anywhere on the globe.
Today, according to an Air Force website, the third phase of that system
provides secure command, control, and communications for "the Army's ground mobile forces,
the Air Force's airborne terminals, Navy ships at sea, the White House Communications Agency,
the State Department, and special users" like the CIA and NSA.
At great cost, the Vietnam War marked a watershed in Washington's global information
architecture. Turning defeat into innovation, the Air Force had developed the key components --
satellite communications, remote sensing, computer-triggered bombing, and unmanned aircraft --
that would merge 40 years later into a new system of robotic warfare.
The War on Terror
Facing another set of defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq, the twenty-first-century Pentagon
again accelerated the development of new military technologies. After six years of failing
counterinsurgency campaigns in both countries, the Pentagon discovered the power of biometric
identification and electronic surveillance to help pacify sprawling urban areas. And when
President Obama later conducted his troop "surge" in Afghanistan, that country became a frontier
for testing and perfecting drone warfare
deployed in
the Balkans that very year for photo-reconnaissance. In 2000, it was adapted for real-time
surveillance under the CIA's Operation Afghan Eyes. It would be armed with the tank-killing
Hellfire missile for the agency's first lethal strike in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in October
2001. Seven years later, the Air Force introduced the larger MQ-9 "Reaper" drone with a flying
range of 1,150 miles when fully loaded with Hellfire missiles and GBU-30 bombs, allowing it to
strike targets almost anywhere in Europe, Africa, or Asia. To fulfill its expanding mission as
Washington's
global assassin , the Air Force plans to have 346
Reapers in service by 2021, including 80 for the CIA
Between 2004 and 2010, total flying time for all unmanned aerial vehicles rose
sharply from just 71 hours to 250,000 hours. By 2011, there were already 7,000 drones in a
growing U.S.
armada of unmanned aircraft. So central had they become to its military power that the
Pentagon was
planning to spend $40 billion to expand their numbers by 35% over the following decade. To
service all this growth, the Air Force was training 350 drone pilots,
more than all its bomber and fighter pilots combined.
Miniature or monstrous, hand-held or runway-launched, drones were becoming so commonplace
and so critical for so many military missions that they emerged from the war on terror as one
of America's wonder weapons for preserving its global power. Yet the striking innovations in
drone warfare are, in the long run, likely to be overshadowed by stunning aerospace advances in
the stratosphere and exosphere.
The Pentagon's Triple Canopy
As in Vietnam, despite bitter reverses on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington's
recent wars have been catalysts for the fusion of aerospace, cyberspace, and artificial
intelligence into a new military regime of robotic warfare.
To effect this technological transformation, starting in 2009 the Pentagon planned to
spend $55 billion annually to develop robotics for a data-dense interface of space,
cyberspace, and terrestrial battle space. Through an annual allocation for new technologies
reaching $18 billion in 2016, the Pentagon had,
according to the New York Times , "put artificial intelligence at the center of
its strategy to maintain the United States' position as the world's dominant military power,"
exemplified by future drones that will be capable of identifying and eliminating enemy targets
without recourse to human overseers. By 2025, the United States will likely deploy advanced
aerospace and cyberwarfare to envelop the planet in a robotic matrix theoretically capable of
blinding entire armies or atomizing an individual insurgent.
During 15 years of nearly limitless military budgets for the war on terror, DARPA has spent
billions of dollars trying to develop new weapons systems worthy of Buck Rogers that
usually die on the drawing board or end in spectacular crashes. Through this astronomically
costly process of trial and error, Pentagon planners seem to have come to the slow realization
that established systems, particularly drones and satellites, could in combination create an
effective aerospace architecture.
Within a decade, the Pentagon apparently hopes to patrol the entire planet ceaselessly via a
triple-canopy aerospace shield that would reach from sky to space and be secured by an armada
of drones with lethal missiles and Argus-eyed sensors, monitored through an electronic matrix
and controlled by robotic systems. It's even possible to take you on a tour of the super-secret
realm where future space wars will be fought, if the Pentagon's dreams become reality, by
exploring both DARPA websites and those of its various defense contractors.
Drones in the Lower Stratosphere
At the bottom tier of this emerging aerospace shield in the lower stratosphere (about 30,000
to 60,000 feet high), the Pentagon is working with defense contractors to develop high-altitude
drones that will replace manned aircraft. To supersede the manned U-2 surveillance aircraft,
for instance, the Pentagon has been preparing a projected armada of 99 Global Hawk drones at a
mind-boggling cost of $223 million each, seven times the price of the current Reaper model. Its
extended 116-foot wingspan (bigger than that of a Boeing 737) is geared to operating at 60,000
feet. Each Global Hawk is
equipped with high-resolution cameras, advanced electronic sensors, and efficient engines
for a continuous 32-hour flight, which means that it can potentially survey up to 40,000 square
miles of the planet's surface daily. With its enormous bandwidth needed to bounce a torrent of
audio-visual data between satellites and ground stations, however, the Global Hawk, like other
long-distance drones in America's armada, may prove vulnerable to a hostile hack attack in some
future conflict.
"... we should take anything that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton has to say with a grain of salt. They will say whatever they think will improve their chances of being elected in the fall. That said, I would not expect either of them, if elected, to bring about any serious rethinking of U.S. national security policy. As I suggested in that Harper's piece, they are different versions of hawks. ..."
"... I think that the meeting between FDR and the Saudi King that you cite is a very important waystation. That committed the United States to securing the monarchy, in return for expectations that we would have privileged access to oil in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... However, I think the real turning point happens in 1980. Prior to 1980, there certainly was a U.S. policy in the greater Middle East, but it was not a U.S. policy that found expression in any serious military commitment. That changes in 1980, when Jimmy Carter promulgates the Carter doctrine. If you recall, that's a statement that designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. national security interest, and explicitly a place that we're now willing to fight for. ..."
"... At our present moment, as you and I are speaking, the concern is about ISIS. Certainly it's a, it's reasonable to view ISIS as a threat. It's also true that ISIS would not exist had not the United States invaded Iraq back in 2003. We shattered Iraq, and out of the chaos of Iraq has emerged this new terrorist entity. ..."
"... The foundation of our expectations of being the indispensable nation lie in the belief that we possess military might such as the world has never seen. And yet what we have found time and again in the greater Middle East is our military might is inadequate to the challenge. And we're not willing to admit that. Foreign policy establishment is not willing to admit that. And frankly, I think the majority of the American people are not willing to admit that. Not willing to admit that we are not history's agent. ..."
BACEVICH: Well, I think that's true. I mean, for the moment, we should take anything that
Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton has to say with a grain of salt. They will say whatever they think
will improve their chances of being elected in the fall. That said, I would not expect either of
them, if elected, to bring about any serious rethinking of U.S. national security policy. As I suggested
in that Harper's piece, they are different versions of hawks.
... ... ...
BACEVICH: Well, I think, I think that the meeting between FDR and the Saudi King that you
cite is a very important waystation. That committed the United States to securing the monarchy, in
return for expectations that we would have privileged access to oil in the Persian Gulf.
However, I think the real turning point happens in 1980. Prior to 1980, there certainly was
a U.S. policy in the greater Middle East, but it was not a U.S. policy that found expression in any
serious military commitment. That changes in 1980, when Jimmy Carter promulgates the Carter doctrine.
If you recall, that's a statement that designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. national security
interest, and explicitly a place that we're now willing to fight for. So prior to 1980, no major
U.S. military involvement in the region. Beginning in 1980, a pattern of armed interventionism in
the greater Middle East that continues down to the present day, and at least in my judgment has been
unsuccessful, and indeed, counterproductive. So the military narrative really begins in 1980.
JAY: Yeah, it's interesting with a Democratic president, from the Democratic Party, certainly
under the sway of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was more or less the architect, I think, of the Carter
doctrine, and leads to the war in Afghanistan. I guess--I hope most people know the basic story there,
that the Americans funded jihadists in Afghanistan to suck the Russians in, and then successfully
so, into a quagmire. And even though that led to the forming of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Bin
Laden.
And I think you can probably draw a straight line from that Carter doctrine right to 9/11,
in terms of--it's a good example, I think, of what you're talking about, how this foreign policy--.
BACEVICH: I don't, I don't know that I'd call it a straight line, but there's a line. I mean,
there certainly are a whole bunch of dots that can be connected. And I think that the Afghanistan
experience, we're supporting the jihadists, is a good example of the unexpected consequences of U.S.
interventionism.
At our present moment, as you and I are speaking, the concern is about ISIS. Certainly it's
a, it's reasonable to view ISIS as a threat. It's also true that ISIS would not exist had not the
United States invaded Iraq back in 2003. We shattered Iraq, and out of the chaos of Iraq has emerged
this new terrorist entity.
So both of these, Afghanistan in the '80s, Iraq beginning in 2003, illustrate the larger point
that U.S. military interventionism in this region simply has not produced the positive outcomes that
policymakers have, have expected.
... ... ....
BACEVICH: ...The foundation of our expectations of being the indispensable nation lie in the
belief that we possess military might such as the world has never seen. And yet what we have found
time and again in the greater Middle East is our military might is inadequate to the challenge. And
we're not willing to admit that. Foreign policy establishment is not willing to admit that. And frankly,
I think the majority of the American people are not willing to admit that. Not willing to admit that
we are not history's agent.
A scene from the Hard Hat Riot, March 8, 1970 ( source )
No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave
-- " The Stars-Spangled Banner
"
Bottom line first. The main point of this piece is -- we should stop pretending.
In light of the recent protests by black athletes during the playing of "The Stars
– Spangled Banner" before football games -- the "stars-spangled banner" being the
American flag, so-named in Francis Scott Key's memorable (and musically deficient) American
national anthem -- it seems fair to ask, What does the American flag stand for?
The modern meaning of the flag was forged in December 1860, when Major Robert Anderson moved the U.S. garrison from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter in Charleston
Harbor. Author Adam Goodheart argues this was the opening move of the American Civil War , and the
flag was used throughout northern states to symbolize American nationalism and rejection
of secessionism . [emphasis added]
In the prologue to his book 1861 , Goodheart writes:
Before that day [in December 1860], the flag had served mostly as a military ensign or a
convenient marking of American territory, flown from forts, embassies, and ships, and
displayed on special occasions like American Independence day. But in the weeks after Major
Anderson's surprising stand, it became something different. Suddenly the Stars and Stripes
flew -- as it does today, and especially as it did after the September 11 attacks in 2001 --
from houses, from storefronts, from churches; above the village greens and college quads. For
the first time American flags were mass-produced rather than individually stitched and even
so, manufacturers could not keep up with demand. As the long winter of 1861 turned into
spring, that old flag meant something new. The abstraction of the Union cause was
transfigured into a physical thing: strips of cloth that millions of people would fight for,
and many thousands die for .
Note two things about this transformation from flag to symbol. First, it represents military
conquest -- originally the reconquest of the South, "strips of cloth that millions of people
would fight for, and many thousands die for."
Second, those conquests are always presented as defensive -- in this case, "preserving the
Union" as opposed to re-annexing territory whose inhabitants were exercising, however good or
ill their reasons, the right of self-determination, a prime example of which was the nation's
own Revolutionary War of 1776.
The Flag of a Warrior Nation
To expand the second point: We like to think of our warrior nation's wars as fought in
defense -- with the flag representing that brave defensive posture -- but I can't think of a
single defensive war after the War of 1776, save World War II (a war whose causative attack,
some historians argue, we invited).
The War of 1812 was, in large part, a failed U.S. attempt to annex
Canada while the British were tied up with Napoleon on the European continent (see also
below). The Mexican American War was fought, ultimately, as a result of a dispute over Texas,
which had seceded (irony alert) from Mexico and was subsequently welcomed into the U.S. In
other words, a war of territorial expansion.
In the Civil War, the U.S. government took the position of the government of Mexico a decade
and a half earlier and fought to disallow the secession of Southern states from the national
government. One could call that war, among other things, a war to retain territory. Of course,
the Civil War was also a war to abolish slavery, but that entirely moral motive came relatively
late in the discussion .
The Spanish-American War was also a war of territorial expansion, as Gore Vidal, among many
others, so well
elucidated . Out of that war, along with other possessions, we acquired the
Spanish-speaking island of Puerto Rico, which we're now mightily abusing.
World War I was certainly not a defensive war, whatever else it was. The sinking of the Lusitania
, for example, owed as much to American banking and industrial support France and England and
the resultant German blockade of England, one that ships carrying U.S-sourced war
matériel refused to honor, as it owed to the barbarity of "the Hun," however
propagandistically that attack was later portrayed.
Both the Korean War and the Vietnam War were products of U.S. intervention into the Cold War
in Asia, though with some differences. In Korea, the U.S. was helping South Korea (a post-World
War II created
nation ) repel an invasion from North Korea (a similarly created nation).
In Vietnam, the U.S. and its World War II allies violated an agreement with Ho Chi Minh, who
had fought with them against the Japanese, not to return Vietnam, his homeland, to French
colonial rule. Vietnam was returned to the French, however, and Ho went back to war. He
defeated the French in 1954, Vietnam was temporarily partitioned so the defeated French could
evacuate, and unifying elections were set for 1956. Realizing that Ho Chi Minh would win
overwhelmingly, the U.S. under Secretary of State John Foster Dulles allowed Vietnam south of the
demilitarized zone to be declared a separate nation , and Ho again went back to war, with
results that are with us today.
It goes without saying that neither of the Iraq wars were defensive, nor are the multiple
places in the Middle East with insurrections we are currently bombing, droning, or supporting
those (the Saudis, for example) who are doing both with our help.
What does the American flag stand for, militarily? Certainly not defending the nation from
attack, since we've so rarely had to do it. Our enemies would say it stands for national
aggression. Which leads to the next point.
A Symbol of National Obedience
Take a look at the image at the top. During the Nixon era, enemies of Vietnam War protestors
and draft dodgers appropriated the flag as a symbol of their own aggression and anger -- anger
at "the hippies"; at free love (which to a man they envied); at "unpatriotic" protests against
the nation's wrongdoing; at anything and anyone who didn't rejoice, in essence, in the macho,
patriarchic, authoritarian demands for obedience to right-wing leaders like Richard Nixon.
That's not an overstatement, and everyone reading this knows it, given just a little
thought. Why do cops wear flags on their uniforms, for example, but not nurses? Ignore the
cover-story explanations and ask, is it "national pride" and patriotism the police are
expressing, or something closer to the authoritarian anger shown in the image above?
To the Black Lives Matter movement, the answer is obvious. Thus it should be to the rest of
us. The obvious reason why cops wear flags is rarely stated though, so I won't say more of it
here, except to add the following: The complaint against football players who "took a knee" in
protest to American racism -- perpetrated in large part by aggressive, race-angry,
flag-decorated police -- is that they don't "honor the flag" and what it represents.
Perhaps, unknowingly, that's exactly what they're doing.
So we're back to the question -- what does the American flag represent beyond its meaning as
a heraldic device? What does the American flag stand for?
The answer, of course, is all of the above. Again: all of the above. We should stop
pretending.
"The Stars Spangled Banner"
Which brings us back to Colin Kaepernick and the national anthem. Jonathan Schwartz (of
A Tiny Revolution ) astutely
writes this at
The Intercept in a piece subtitled "The National Anthem is a Celebration of Slavery":
Before a preseason game on Friday, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick
refused to stand for the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner." When he
explained why, he only spoke about the present: "I am not going to stand up to show pride
in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. There are bodies in
the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."
Almost no one seems to be aware that even if the U.S. were a perfect country today, it
would be bizarre to expect African-American players to stand for "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Why? Because it literally celebrates the murder of African-Americans.
Few people know this because we only ever sing the first verse. But read the end of the third
verse and you'll see why "The Star-Spangled Banner" is not just a musical atrocity, it's
an intellectual and moral one, too:
No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
"The Star-Spangled Banner," Americans hazily remember, was written by Francis Scott Key
about the Battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore during the War of 1812. But we don't ever talk
about how the War of 1812 was a war of aggression that began with an attempt by the U.S. to
grab Canada from the British Empire.
And about those slaves
[O]ne of the key tactics behind the British military's success was its active recruitment
of American slaves.
Whole families found their way to the ships of the British, who accepted everyone and
pledged no one would be given back to their "owners." Adult men were trained to create a
regiment called the Colonial Marines, who participated in many of the most important battles,
including the August 1814 raid on Washington .
So when Key penned "No refuge could save the hireling and slave / From the terror of
flight or the gloom of the grave," he was taking great satisfaction in the death of slaves
who'd freed themselves . His perspective may have been affected by the fact he owned
several slaves himself .
Thus we come full circle, from the Hard Hat Riot by those who would morph from "Silent
Majority" into "Reagan Democrats" and then form part of the Donald Trump base (the racist
part), to those who angrily hate the "anti-flag" protesters. All of them fans of police in
their most brutal manifestation. All of them fans of American football, a violent sport, as
Donald
Trump admiringly reminds us . All of them fans of aggressive, manly, "no one pushes us
around" wars. And all of them fans of obedience to authority, so long as it's the one they also
obey.
What does the American flag stand for? We may as well all stop pretending and admit it -- it
stand for all of the above. Every bit of it. Because that's what its wearers want it to stand
for.
"... But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards. ..."
"... Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked. ..."
"... A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia"). ..."
"... The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism." ..."
"... That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties. ..."
"... No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. ..."
"... Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. ..."
Last Friday, most major media outlets touted a major story about Russian attempts to hack into
U.S. voting systems, based exclusively on claims made by the Department of Homeland Security. "Russians
attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states in the run-up to last year's presidential election,
officials said Friday," began the USA Today story, similar to how most other outlets presented this
extraordinary claim.
This official story was explosive for obvious reasons, and predictably triggered instant decrees
– that of course went viral – declaring that the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential
election is now in doubt.
Virginia's Democratic Congressman Don Beyer, referring to the 21 targeted states, announced that
this shows "Russia tried to hack their election":
MSNBC's Paul Revere for all matters relating to the Kremlin take-over, Rachel Maddow, was indignant
that this wasn't told to us earlier and that we still aren't getting all the details. "What we have
now figured out," Maddow gravely intoned as she showed the multi-colored maps she made, is that "Homeland
Security knew at least by June that 21 states had been targeted by Russian hackers during the election.
. .targeting their election infrastructure."
They were one small step away from demanding that the election results be nullified, indulging
the sentiment expressed by #Resistance icon Carl Reiner the other day: "Is there anything more exciting
that [sic] the possibility of Trump's election being invalidated & Hillary rightfully installed as
our President?"
So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall
apart yesterday when Associated Press reported that Wisconsin – one of the states included in the
original report that, for obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have its
election systems targeted by Russian hackers:
The spokesman for Homeland Security then tried to walk back that reversal, insisting that there
was still evidence that some computer networks had been targeted, but could not say that they had
anything to do with elections or voting. And, as AP noted: "Wisconsin's chief elections administrator,
Michael Haas, had repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted."
Then the story collapsed completely last night. The Secretary of State for another one of the
named states, California, issued a scathing statement repudiating the claimed report:
Sometimes stories end up debunked. There's nothing particularly shocking about that. If this were
an isolated incident, one could chalk it up to basic human error that has no broader meaning.
But this is no isolated incident. Quite the contrary: this has happened over and over and over
again. Inflammatory claims about Russia get mindlessly hyped by media outlets, almost always based
on nothing more than evidence-free claims from government officials, only to collapse under the slightest
scrutiny, because they are entirely lacking in evidence.
The examples of such debacles when it comes to claims about Russia are too numerous to comprehensively
chronicle. I wrote about this phenomenon many times and listed many of the examples, the last time
in June when 3 CNN journalists "resigned" over a completely false story linking Trump adviser Anthony
Scaramucci to investigations into a Russian investment fund which the network was forced to retract:
Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid,
causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to Americans in winter, only to have
to issue multiple retractions because none of that ever happened? Or the time that the Post had to
publish a massive editor's note after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the
internet and spreading of "Fake News" based on an anonymous group's McCarthyite blacklist that counted
sites like the Drudge Report and various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?
Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all
based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near?
Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that
casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin? Or the time that Fortune
retracted suggestions that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN's network? And then there's the
huge market that was created – led by leading Democrats – that blindly ingested every conspiratorial,
unhinged claim about Russia churned out by an army of crazed conspiracists such as Louise Mensch
and Claude "TrueFactsStated" Taylor?
And now we have the Russia-hacked-the-voting-systems-of-21-states to add to this trash heap. Each
time the stories go viral; each time they further shape the narrative; each time those who spread
them say little to nothing when it is debunked.
None of this means that every Russia claim is false, nor does it disprove the accusation that
Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email inboxes (a claim for which, just by
the way, still no evidence has been presented by the U.S. government). Perhaps there were some states
that were targeted, even though the key claims of this story, that attracted the most attention,
have now been repudiated.
But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails
when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion
as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards.
Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma
– it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates
numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded
any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election),
even if they end up being debunked.
A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter
more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story
is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic
national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former
acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the
founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled
(this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and
David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper)
– calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war
with Russia").
The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic:
they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate
an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter
accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their
lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism."
They do it all in secret, and you're just supposed to trust them: Bill Kristol, Mike Chertoff
and their national security state friends. And the New York Times is apparently fine with this demand,
as evidenced by its uncritical acceptance yesterday of the claims of this group – a group formed
by the nation's least trustworthy sources.
But no matter. It's a claim about nefarious Russian control. So it's instantly vested with credibility
and authority, published by leading news outlets, and then blindly accepted as fact in most elite
circles. From now on, it will simply be Fact – based on the New York Times article – that the Kremlin
aggressively and effectively weaponized Twitter to manipulate public opinion and sow divisions during
the election, even though the evidence for this new story is the secret, unverifiable assertions
of a group filled with the most craven neocons and national security state liars.
That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the
biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike
the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties.
No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must
overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. And the penalty for desiring to see
evidence for official claims, or questioning the validity and persuasiveness of the evidence that
is proffered, are accusations that impugn one's patriotism and loyalty (simply wanting to see evidence
for official claims about Russia is proof, in many quarters, that one is a Kremlin agent or at least
adores Putin – just as wanting to see evidence in 2002, or questioning the evidence presented for
claims about Saddam, was viewed as proof that one harbored sympathy for the Iraqi dictator).
Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate
as healthy. Just look at how many major, incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets,
have collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how we are discussing and
reporting on relations between these two nuclear-armed powers?
It is impossible to understand the current wave of the US militarism without understanding
neoliberalism and, especially, neoconservatism -- the dominant force in the US foreign policy since
Reagan.
Many of my colleagues, Republican colleagues, here in the Senate, for example, disparage the United
Nations, he says, sitting across the table from me, in front of a wall of Vermont tourism posters.
While clearly the United Nations could be more effective, it is imperative that we strengthen international
institutions, because at the end of the day, while it may not be sexy, it may not be glamorous, it
may not allow for great soundbites, simply the idea of people coming together and talking and arguing
is a lot better than countries going to war.
... ... ...
The senator makes clear that unilateralism, the belief that we can simply overthrow governments
that we dont want, that has got to be re-examined. After referencing the Iraq War -- one of the great
foreign policy blunders in the history of this country -- the senator touches on another historic
blunder which, to his credit, few of his fellow senators would be willing to discuss, let alone critique.
In 1953, the United States, with the British, overthrew [Mohammed] Mossadegh, the prime minister
of Iran – and this was to benefit British oil interests, he reminds me. The result was the shah came
into power, who was a very ruthless man, and the result of that was that we had the Iranian Revolution,
which takes us to where we are right now.
...So far this year, Sanders has hired
Matt Duss , a respected foreign affairs analyst and former president of the Foundation for Middle
East Peace (FMEP), as his foreign policy adviser, and has given speeches at the liberal Jewish lobbying
group, J Street, where he condemned
Israels continued occupation of Palestinian territories as being contrary to fundamental American
values, and at the centrist Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, where he
rebuked Russian President
Vladimir Putin for trying to weaken the transatlantic alliance.
Last week, my colleague Glenn Greenwald penned a column in The Intercept headlined,
The Clinton Book Tour Is Largely Ignoring the Vital Role of Endless War in the 2016 Election Result.
Greenwald argued that Clintons advocacy of multiple wars and other military actions pushed some swing
voters into the arms of both Donald Trump and third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein. I ask Sanders
whether he agrees with this analysis.
I mean, thats a whole other issue. And I dont know the answer to that. I persist. Surely hed concede
that foreign policy was a factor in Clintons defeat? He doesnt budge. I want to talk about
my speech, not about Hillary Clinton. So foreign policy plays no role in elections?
... ... ...
The U.S. funding plays a very important role, and I would love to see people in the Middle East
sit down with the United States government and figure out how U.S. aid can bring people together,
not just result in an arms war in that area. So I think there is extraordinary potential for the
United States to help the Palestinian people rebuild Gaza and other areas. At the same time, demand
that Israel, in their own interests in a way, work with other countries on environmental issues.
He then, finally, answers my question: So the answer is yes.
It is -- by the depressingly low standard of modern U.S. politics -- a remarkable and, dare I
say it, radical response from Sanders. Aid to Israel in Congress and the pro-Israel community has
been sacrosanct, the
Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted earlier this year, and no president has seriously proposed cutting
it since Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s.
"... The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. ..."
"... he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he said. 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. ..."
"... Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment, one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human rights. ..."
"... They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.) ..."
"... History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly, The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning. ..."
"... Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives. ..."
"... The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power. ..."
"... Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts. ..."
"... As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power of American violence. ..."
"... Expect Uncle Sams fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge. ..."
"... Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue, Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome. ..."
Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Over time, other considerations intruded and
complicated the wars conduct, but oil as a prerequisite of freedom was from day one an abiding consideration.
By 1969, oil imports already made up 20 percent of the daily oil consumption in the United States.
Four years later, Arab oil exporters suspended oil shipments to the United States to punish America
for supporting Israel in the October War. The American economy screeched to a halt, seemingly held
hostage by foreigners -- a big no-no for a country accustomed to getting what it wants. Predictably
the U.S. response was regional domination to keep the oil flowing to America, especially to the Pentagon
and its vast, permanent war machine.
The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination
of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. Before him, Richard
Nixon was content to have the Middle East managed by proxies after the bloodletting America experienced
in Vietnam. His arch-proxy was the despised shah of Iran, whom the United States had installed into
power and then armed to the teeth. When his regime collapsed in 1979, felled by Islamic revolutionaries
who would eventually capture the American embassy and initiate the Iranian hostage crisis, so too
did the Nixon Doctrine. That same year, the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan. The world was a
mess, and Carter was under extreme pressure to do something about it, lest he lose his bid for a
second term. (He suffered a crushing defeat anyway.)
Furies beyond reckoning
The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State
of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Months earlier, in
his infamous malaise speech, Carter asked Americans to simplify their lives and moderate their energy
use. Now he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he
said. 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.
Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment,
one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an
informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has
done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human
rights.
It is illustrative, and alarming, to list Bacevichs selected campaigns and operations in the region
since 1980 up to the present, unleashed by Carter and subsequent presidents. Lets go in alphabetical
order by country followed by the campaigns and operations:
While Bacevich deftly takes the reader through the history of all those wars, the most important
aspect of his book is his critique of the United Statess permanent military establishment and the
power it wields in Washington. According to Bacevich, U.S. military leaders have a tendency to engage
in fantastical thinking rife with hubris. Too many believe the United States is a global force for
good that has the messianic duty to usher in secular modernity, a force that no one should ever interfere
with, either militarily or ideologically.
As Bacevich makes plain again and again, history does not back up that mindset. For instance,
after the Soviet Unions crippling defeat in Afghanistan, the Washington elite saw it as an American
victory, the inauguration of the end of history and the inevitable march of democratic capitalism.
They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and
that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted
the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly
or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.)
Over and over again after 9/11, America would be taught this lesson, as Islamic extremists, both
Sunni and Shia, bloodied the U.S. military across the Greater Middle East, particularly in Afghanistan
and Iraq. History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political
elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined
end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly,
The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.
Yet across Americas War for the Greater Middle East, presidents would speak theologically of Americas
role in the world, never admitting the United States is not an instrument of the Almighty. George
H.W. Bush would speak of a new world order. Bill Clintons Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would
declare that America is the indispensable nation. George W. Bushs faith in this delusion led him
to declare a global war on terrorism, where American military might would extinguish evil wherever
it resided and initiate Condoleeza Rices 'paradigm of progress -- democracy, limited government,
market economics, and respect for human (and especially womens) rights across the region. As with
all zealots, there was no acknowledgment by the Bush administration, flamboyantly Christian, that
evil resided inside them too. Barack Obama seemed to pull back from this arrogance in his 2009 Cairo
speech, declaring, No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
Yet he continued to articulate his faith that all people desire liberal democracy, even though that
simply isnt true.
All in all, American presidents and their military advisors believed they could impose a democratic
capitalist peace on the world, undeterred that each intervention created more instability and unleashed
new violent forces the United States would eventually engage militarily, such as Saddam Hussein,
al-Qaeda, and ISIS. Bacevich explains that this conviction, deeply embedded in the American collective
psyche, provides one of the connecting threads making the ongoing War for the Greater Middle East
something more than a collection of disparate and geographically scattered skirmishes.
War and diplomacy
Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the
failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned
this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton
Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but
to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during
the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology
was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives.
This logic would run aground in Iraq after 9/11 during what Bacevich calls the Third Gulf War.
In an act of preventive war, the Bush administration shocked and awed Baghdad, believing U.S. military
supremacy and its almost divine violence would bring other state sponsors of terrorism to heel after
America quickly won the war. Vanquishing Saddam Hussein and destroying his army promised to invest
American diplomacy with the power to coerce. Although the Bush administration believed the war ended
after three weeks, Bacevich notes, the Third Gulf War was destined to continue for another 450.
The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going
along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power.
There was hope that Barack Obama, a constitutional professor, would correct the Bush administrations
failures and start to wind down Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Instead, he expanded it
into Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and West Africa through drone warfare and special-operations
missions. Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal
contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts.
Now this war is in the hands of Donald J. Trump. If there is any upside to a Trump presidency
-- and I find it hard to find many -- its the possibility that the intensity of American imperialism
in the Middle East will wane. But I find that likelihood remote. Trump has promised to wipe out ISIS,
which means continued military action in at least Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He has also called for
more military spending, and I find it hard to believe that he or the national-security establishment
will increase investment in the military and then show restraint in the use of force overseas.
As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up
the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power
of American violence. They persist in this belief despite all evidence to the contrary. These are
the men and women who will be whispering their advice into the new presidents ear. Expect Uncle Sams
fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge.
Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue,
Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We
have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome.
And to this its not hard to hear Trump retort, Loser! And so the needless violence will continue
on and on with no end in sight unless the American population develops a Middle East syndrome to
replace the Vietnam syndrome that once made Washington wary of war.
That lack of confidence in the masters of war cant come soon enough.
This article was originally published in the July 2017 edition of
Future of Freedom .
This reminds me of one of Ray Bradbury's short stories, "The Anthem Sprinters," based on his
experiences in Ireland while working on John Huston's Moby-Dick. The story isn't available
online (though brief summaries can be found here
and elsewhere, but the plot is straightforward enough, concerning an American visitor's
discovery of a peculiar national sport. Since there was a requirement after all cinema
performances that the Irish national anthem, a peculiarly lugubrious number called "The
Soldier's Song," be played, and since Dublin cinema goers were more enthusiastic about getting
to the pub to get a round or two in before closing time than about demonstrating their fidelity
to the national ideal, they used to rush towards the exits in a class of a race, to avoid
having to stay and stand through the rendition. Bradbury's suggestion that this was transformed
from a disorganized herd-like stampede into an actual sport is probably poetic exaggeration,
but I don't doubt that the underlying practice existed.
I'm sure that I'm not the only imported American to find the required sincerity of American
nationalism a bit disorienting – it's not what I grew up with in a country where even the
greenest of 32 counties Republicanism was shot through with ambiguities. It's not just a right
wing thing either (the Pledge of Allegiance having been famously written by a socialist). Nor
did I realize until the recent controversy that one of the verses of the "Star Spangled Banner"
apparently
looks forward to the death of American slaves freed by the British who fought in their
regiment. A little more ambiguity and anthem-dashing might be no bad thing.
Standing for the anthem or repeating the pledge of allegiance a pure gesture of loyalty.
The meaning of the words don't matter. Jerusalem is the de facto anthem of England, but the
wild radicalism of its author is long forgotten. And I doubt if very many Frenchmen are all
that bloodthirsty or still mad at Bouillé. The real issue isn't the lyrics but to whom
one must express fealty; and the apt analogy, especially in the Trump era, is to the Roman
practice of sacrificing to the Emperor. Trump, who personalizes everything and hasn't got a
patriotic bone in his body, is accusing the gladiators of lese majeste.
I would be interested to see how many flag and anthem symbol worshipers would run to the
exits if the ceremony followed the games in America, instead of preceding them.
How many would sacrifice their speedy exit from the parking lots in order to perform a
ritual showing of respect?
Accept in Jewishness of neocons is counterproductive. They perform their role because this is
what MIC which controls and pays them want them to perform. The fact that there are selected for
this role is no different then large percent of Jews in academia: they provide to be talented
propagandists.
Some commenters definitely mix effects of neoliberalism on the US society with the influence
of Jews. That's pathetic.
Notable quotes:
"... [Choose a single Handle and stick with it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments will be trashed.] ..."
...The recent example is a piece by Philip
Giraldi on the Unz.com, which still produces waves on the web. In his piece he rolled the
list of Jews who were keen on Iraq invasion, and who are pushing the US now into an attack on
Iran: "David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen And
yep, they're all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neo-conservatives."
Giraldi proposed to keep Jews out of the positions of influence on the foreign affairs, in
order to keep the US out of wars it does not need. Giraldi wrote: "We don't need a war with
Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to
deliver."
Actually, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote at the time (in
April 2003): "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them
Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them,
journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible."
I also wrote things in the same vein during Iraq invasion, and it is good to see that this
thesis did not die but keeps resurging from time to time. One could add that these very persons
are pushing for conflict with Russia, demonise Putin and attack Trump, though the Orange Man
tries to fulfill their wishes as an eager Santa Claus of diligent Lizzie.
While agreeing with Giraldi on the malady, let us discuss the remedy. Would keeping Jews out
of foreign policy making actually help? Did the US keep out of wars before the Rise of Jews in
late 1960s? The Jews weren't specially prominent before that time, and certainly weren't
overrepresented in the establishment. A Jewish couple, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg has been
fried on the electric chair in 1953, and there were few objections. McCarthy terrorized Jews.
The word Holocaust had yet to make its first appearance (in 1968). Jews were still kept out of
clubs and out of high level politics. Israel had been threatened by the US (in 1956) rather
than assisted.
And still, the free-from-Jews US had fought in Korea the terrible three-year long war
(1950-1953), and in Vietnam (up to 1974), invaded and caused regime change in Guatemala and
Iran, violently interfered in elections in France and Italy, and had fought the fierce Cold War
against the USSR. In all these campaigns, the US Jews were actually for peace and against war.
The Jews were nowhere in power when the US fought its wars against Spain and Mexico. The
non-Jewish US made a coup in Iran, and non-Jewish and not-pro-Israel President Carter tried to
invade Iran. Jews weren't involved in the conquest of Panama, in Nicaragua intervention, in
Granada operation.
Perhaps the Jews had moved the arena of wars to the Middle East and out of Latin America.
Less Jewish-influenced America would rather invade Venezuela than Iraq or Iran. But is it so
wonderful?
The idea of correcting or channelling the excessive Jewish influence is a reasonable one,
but can this goal be achieved by keeping Kristol and Krauthammer out of media (an excellent
thought anyway)?
The Jewish prominence in the US is inbuilt in the US culture and tradition. Karl Marx
wrote that "in North
America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its
unambiguous and normal expression". He said that all Yankees are Jews, behave like Jews, aspire
to be Jews and even are circumcised like Jews. So it is natural that real Jews succeed better
in being Jews than their Gentile neighbours. Werner Sombart added that Jews were prominent from
the very dawn of America and they created American-style capitalism the way that fits them. The
Jews are prominent now because America is custom-built for Jews to fit and suit them, he
said.
This is what should be corrected, and then the Jewish scribes, these Krauthammers will be
out of business of inciting wars. Stop subscribing to Jewish success model, and the Jews won't
be able to influence the Senate. Make the US Christian as Christ taught, share labour and
wealth, aspire to God instead of Mammon, make the first last and the last first, love thy
neighbour and the problem will be solved.
If this is too tall an order, make it a smaller one. Unseating Ledeens and Frums (and I
think they deserve tar and feathers all right) will not do the trick unless the rich Jews are
un-wealthed. Without excessive Jewish wealth, there will be no excessive Jewish push for wars.
And provided that more than half of all US wealth is in few Jewish hands, freeing it will make
a colossal effect of improving life of every American, even every person on earth.
And why to stop there? The super-rich non-Jews are as Jewish as any Jew. They share the same
aspirations. Strip them of their assets. Why should we worry whether Jeff Bezos is a Jew by
blood or faith, or he is not? He behaves like a Jew, and that is enough. Establish a ceiling of
wealth, a counterpart of minimal wage. This idea has been mulled: Jeremy Corbyn called for the
maximum wage. Taxes can do it easily – in wonderful Sweden of 1950s, top tax rate was
102%. Or this can be achieved in a more festive way of stripping the richest men of their
ill-gotten wealth on the main square of Washington, DC on Mardi Gras Sunday. Do not say this is
a punishment for their diligence – other way around, this is assistance on their way to
spiritual improvement. Too many assets imprison the spirit.
This would be good for Jews and for all concerned: while the average Jewish wealth in the US
had been lagging below total average (that is as long as Jews were less wealthy than Gentiles),
the Jews acted in the interests of the people. Around 1968-1970 the Jews became more wealthy
than all Americans, and that was it: they ceased to strive for the common good.
Jews could be a force for good if their excessive tendency to collect material goods is
nipped in the bud. So it was in the USSR: as the Jews could not make money, they went into
science and worked for the common good. Even oligarchs could be good managers instead of pain
in the neck for the society.
This is not more complicated than booting Max Boot out of writing business. So why to go for
a palliative if you can go for the jugular?
Israel Shamir is an entertaining writer and sometimes informative (especially about Russia).
But he is prone to hyperbole. For example:
[N]on-Jewish and not-pro-Israel President Carter tried to invade Iran
Perhaps the Jews had moved the arena of wars to the Middle East and out of Latin America.
Less Jewish-influenced America would rather invade Venezuela than Iraq or Iran. But is it so
wonderful?
– Shamir
The Special Forces operation to extract USA's hostages in Iran fell way short of anything
that anyone would call an "invasion." As for Venezuela:
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) fired back at President Trump on Friday, saying Congress
"obviously isn't authorizing war in Venezuela" after Trump said he wouldn't rule out using a
military option in the country.
"No, Congress obviously isn't authorizing war in Venezuela," Sasse, a member of the Senate
Armed Services committee, said in a statement. "Nicolas Maduro is a horrible human being, but
Congress doesn't vote to spill Nebraskans' blood based on who the Executive lashes out at
today."
– The Hill
This entire article is based on Shanir's exaggerationa: First, as I recall, Giraldi never
suggested any form of censorship of news media or commentary; more likely Giraldi would like to
see effectively less censorship, especially censorship on behalf of Israel and Zionism. Second,
Giraldi, as I recall, never made his suggestions as promising an end to war in general. Third,
Giraldi never suggested that removing Jews from positions of influence relating to USA's global
security/strategy would keep the USA out of all unnecessary wars, only that it would help in
getting the USA out of unnecessary wars in the ME -- wars that do not enhance and indeed detract
from our national security.
I feel certain that Giraldi knows as much as anyone about the evil influence of the Military
Industrial Congressional Complex -- which obviously includes major gentile players as well as
Zionist neocons. For me, the matter is simple: anyone whose loyalty is divided between the USA
and Israel should be barred from any position of influence in USA's military or related
governmental activities. The same is true for anyone whose loyalty is divided between the USA
and the People's Republic of China or Ireland or Russia or the Vatican or wherever.
It's been a week or so since I read Giraldi's piece, but I recall him saying keep Jews in
the US out of policy matters relating to Israel. "Put the Jewish members in
charge of Korea Policy. . . " I believe was Giraldi's example. You seem to be punching a straw
man with your otherwise pedestrian argument. But thanks for supporting Giraldi's basic
thesis!
Now these pitiful William-F-Buckley-tards should put Giraldi's article back up; Shamir
confirms that Giraldi is right.
While agreeing with Giraldi on the malady, let us discuss the remedy. Would keeping Jews
out of foreign policy making actually help? Did the US keep out of wars before the Rise of Jews
in late 1960s? The Jews weren't specially prominent before that time, and certainly weren't
overrepresented in the establishment.
This is an interesting question, but there is a difference between Then and Now.
In the past, US expansionism was part of the global norm. Imperialism was common and
accepted all over the world. Ottomans ruled over a giant empire. Russians kept expanding into
Siberia and Central Asia. It also swallowed parts of Central Europe. Manchus took over China
and gobbled up more territory as part of Chinese empire. There were native imperialist wars in
Africa before white man came. And Mexico was also the product of empire building. Spanish took
it from Aztec Imperialists, and the Conquis took more land. And Spanish also took Philippines.
Brits and French were creating vast empires. US was created out of empire-building and
continued as such.
So, US warmongering in the past was part of the world norm. Everyone did it. Also,
empire-building was seen as glorious for the Whole People. So, even though the elites benefited
the most, there was a sense of shared glory among all Britons over the British Empire. All
Frenchmen were to share the glory of the French Empire. And US expansion into SW territories
was great not only for elites but for Anglo settlers who built new lives in those areas. And it
was even good for Mexers in the region because Anglos did so much than Mexers had done before
when SW territories had belonged to Mexico. It's like Ramon has it pretty good working for
gringos. He was like the Guillermo of his day.
@Anonymous I
thought the ascent of Jewish power in America started in 1913?
One year after that, America entered WWI... WWI was planned and executed to plan by a
British elite – just like the 2 Boer wars. In all these wars, wealthy Jewish bankers
helped get them started – the Cassels and the Rothschilds principally. Many leading
British politicians – e.g. Winston Churchill and his father – were deeply in debt
to these people. The much touted "Balfour Declaration" was the product of a British prime
minister who was in debt to them – as was his uncle Lord Salisbury.
Randolph Churchill died with debts of the order of $8m in today's money to these bankers. It
is all well-documented.
Suggested reading:
"The Secret Origins of the First Wold War" by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor
However, blaming ordinary Jews or American Jews for WWI is as ridiculous as blaming the
French for their corrupt Poincaré or the ordinary British for the warmonger
Churchill.
@Grandpa
Charlie It occurs to me that it's possible that Shamir intended the article as humor, as
camp, as a parody of ((anti-Jewish)) commentary here at UR. It's complicated.
This article is a mix of truths and bull. But the key problem with the article is that it
never mentions the main tool of the Zionists – the petrodollar and the main conduit of
the Zionist power in US – The Federal Reserve. Luckily, China and Russia are working on
dethroning FED by diminishing petrodollar. This will have the world-wide beneficial effect of
deglobalisation: removing the ability to print money indefinitely will curb the ambitions of
both "the rich Jews and the rich who want to be Jews" to rule the World. Power will become
distributed again and the Jews will have to compete with the Chinese for domination.
Diminishing petrodollar is a much healthier solution than the Marxist's solution of removing
wealth from the wealthy Jews and wannabe Jews. Once one starts removing wealth from
individuals, one does not know where and when to stop.
@Anonymous
It's quite hard to know such things for certain, since a lot of highly-paid professional effort
has gone into concealing them from public scrutiny.
For some reason I am reminded of George Carlin's weirdly logical observation, "One can never
know for sure what a deserted area looks like".
Around 1968-1970 the Jews became more wealthy than all Americans, and that was it: they
ceased to strive for the common good.
For the next 30 years through excessive debt the Jew Allen Greenspan, head of the Fed, put a
stake in the heart of America's economy – end of story.
Jew dominated corporate America turned its head away from its fiduciary responsibilities to
customers, employees, neighbors, investors, and country – they instead turned to raw,
naked, personal greed. Junk bonds got the ball rolling.
In America you no longer do business with your neighbors – you must do business with
Wall Street – Wall Street gets a slice of all your spending. Guess what – unlike
you neighbors – Wall Street doesn't give dam about you – PERIOD.
Companies change ownership with the tough of a keyboard creating great uncertainty for all
those invoved. This creates instability.
Ownership must be returned to local people. Then stability will return to culture.
Remember the old adage for success in the world of WASPs: "Think Yiddish, dress
British."
A serious case can be made for replacing the income tax, which has the potential to keep
people from becoming wealthy, with a wealth tax, which has the effect of making people pay in
proportion to their longer-term success and influence in the system. A millennial might say
that this would be a more sustainable way to run things.
This is not more complicated than booting Max Boot out of writing business. So why to go
for a palliative if you can go for the jugular?
If you think that imposing a general prohibitive wealth tax or somehow banning being rich is
"not more complicated" than simply recognising the problems of dual loyalty and ulterior group
motives, both in general and in particular relation to jewish elites, and addressing them in
some form, then you would seem rather unrealistic to me.
There has been no convincing argument raised against Giraldi's point – the closest to
a response so far seems to be the one you raise here – that jews aren't the only people
or groups pushing the US towards war, which is rather irrelevant, and the insistence that not
all jewish people do so, which is both obvious and likewise irrelevant.
Regardless, and whether or not one agrees with Giraldi's particular diagnosis of one aspect
of the ills of modern US sphere society (I do, broadly), one should support him and it anyway
simply because its expression is so obviously being punished by those who seek to suppress it.
His prompt dismissal by the contemptible American Conservative illustrates the truth of the
point made by those who complain of politically correct censorship being used by identity
lobbyists and those who kowtow to them to control dissent.
The latter is a far bigger problem in the societies of the modern US sphere than the
particular issue of foreign policy identified by Giraldi.
I like what is being said:
Before the 1960s the Jews in the US were not occupying the front stage but their influence was
far from being negligeable. They were acting like a fifth column and as such, they have been
active in triggering and supporting the Bolsheviks revolution, in getting the US to enter WW I
and latter on WW II.
It is also obvious that when they were not occupying the front stage, they were courting the
people in the US and in all the countries where they were living; to get accepted and their
contribution to the societies was important.
Today as they are running the show in the western world, they are acting like slaves drivers
and are treating others like they treat the Palestinians.
Having conquered the US and its dominions in Europe, they want to get the rest of the world.
They never have enough. It looks like they want to take a revenge against all the others like
they have done against the Russian during the revolution. They are no more working for
improving the world but for running it and wreaking a revenge for having living the Diaspora
.
The only way to stop them driving us to Armageddon is to have them bankrupted; the whole
world might be in jeopardy but that is the only way to avoid a nuclear apocalypse.
[Choose a single Handle and stick with it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your
comments will be trashed.]
I have never found Jews particularly cheap or materialistic. Maybe as a Scot I have a warped
perspective. Denied the chance at noble titles or churchly favor, money has been their only
path to power and distinction. What I do see as a problem is the combination of extreme ability
and extreme solidarity. Put that together with their adversarial relationship to the gentile
world developed over the centuries and you have a recipe for harmful culture war. Producing
sexy movies and violent rap, the war on Christmas, the attempt to limit free speech -- all are
forms of aggression or payback for aggression, as I see it. To be sure, not all Jews or even
most feel this emotion, but the ones that do work hard to promote it. According to Pew
Research, 94% of self-identified Jews identify as pro-choice. The next highest group is
mainline Protestants at 59%. Such a great disparity suggests to me that the issue is largely
symbolic for them. I suspect you would find similar disparities on gun rights, attitudes to
pornography, and religion in the public square. It's rare for Muslims or Hindus to complain
about having to hear Christmas carols, but many Jews want to sick the Homeland Security SWAT
Team on the school choir if a few syllables of Hark the Herald Angels are overheard. For that
reason, I feel more threatened by the billions of Adelson, Bezos, Saban, Soros, and Singer than
by Gates or Buffett, even though the latter are also quite liberal.
Why focus so much on Jewish wealth? The main problem of the American system has a simple
name: capitalism. It is wealth and excessively rich people as such, who are the problem, and
with a certain amount of wealth, you stop giving a fork about your religious, ethnic, national,
or other alliances. All you care about are interests rates. Rich people also have a tendency to
turn psychopath and get hooked on power – after all, you need to utilize that money, and
you can only buy so many yachts, ferraris and mansions, right?
Scratch capitalism by changing the monetary system from a debt money system to a full or
free money system, in which private banking based on loans and credits is called out for what
it is: criminal fraud. The debt of the many – including government – is the wealth
of a few. You wouldn't have this sick connection between wealth and poverty, if money creation
wasn't based on debt, and only allowed to a (computerized and automated) fourth state power
called the monetative. Read German thinkers to understand that, start with Karl Marx to
understand the social and spiritual errors of capitalism, read Silvio Gesell and, more
up-to-date, German economist Bernd Senf and Austrian economist Franz Hörmann to understand
the possible alternatives. Educate yourself about The Wörgl Experiment to get an
historical example from Austria where Free Money worked wonders before it was scrapped by the
bankster elite and their political servants during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
Only free money could guarantee free markets (and you wouldn't even need taxes anymore). In
capitalism with debt money, all you ever get is monopolies and corporate cartels.
Add to that a real democracy – no congress, no parliament, no parties, the
legislative shall only be the people based on direct democracy. We now have the technological
means to realize what has never been realized in human history: free markets, democracy, and
something which could be called communism. Don't flinch from reading this last word, the stuff
you commonly refer to as communism must be called bolshevism and has had nothing to do with
actual communist ideals, which can never be realized in a centralized fashion as in capitalism
(centralized wealth) or in bolshevism (centralized state power). But thanks to IT at our
disposal, it can now be realized in form of free money and direct democracy.
'Stop subscribing to Jewish success model, and the Jews won't be able to influence the
Senate. Make the US Christian as Christ taught, share labour and wealth, aspire to God instead
of Mammon, make the first last and the last first, love thy neighbour and the problem will be
solved.'
Would that this were possible. Great ideas in this article, but realistically, could any of
it be implemented? It would take great anti-Jewish fervency, which, as you note, Americans
don't have as they have always behaved as Jews.
What about the American Jewish bankers–like Schiff–that bankrolled Lenin and his
thugs to sneak back into Russia, then proceeded–with his Jewish buddies–to steal
the Revolution from Russians that had deposed the Czar?
Lenin's Bolshevik Jew radicals turned that Christian nation into a Commie nightmare,
murdering around 60 million Russians in the process and turned a Christian nation that had been
on friendly terms with the USA into an implacable foe, eventually leading to a five decades
long 'Cold War.'
The USSR Commies tried to export their madness to Europe, specifically Germany, which led to
the popularity and rise of Hitler and eventually WW II.
During WWII, FDR had a number of Jewish advisers, like Henry Morgenthau, Jr. whose post-WW II
plan for Germany was so punitive, it gave Germans the will to fight harder in the closing days
to prevent the plans implementation, thereby dragging out the war.
It was President Truman's support for creating Israel–by stealing it from
Palestine–and his recognition of that apartheid nightmare that led to many an ill,
including 9/11.
I like Mr. Shamir's writings, but I think he needs to hit the history books again and
refresh his memory.
Just stay away from Wikipedia, which publishes a lop-sided version of the past.
"... Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint. ..."
"... Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats. ..."
"... What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street. ..."
"... I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed. ..."
"... Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge. ..."
"... David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him. ..."
"... But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself. ..."
"... When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people ..."
"... The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof. ..."
"... Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on ..."
"... The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America ..."
"... "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia. ..."
"... This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off . ..."
"... Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe... ..."
"... Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village. ..."
Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him.
Every time he walks out on a stage clapping his hands, encouraging applause, like a daytime TV game show host, I want to puke.
I honestly don't think Trump really expected to win the presidency. And when he did, he was clueless. His "Mission Accomplished"
party at the White House for a bill which would never pass the senate, was pure Dubya Bush. The orange haired POS is an embarrassment
to the country.
What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation
to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street.
The "ultimate goal" (according to internal memos), is to collect on the fraudulent $20 trillion national debt which will result
in Wall Street owning the United States. Hello, Greece.
I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated
by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed.
Peace is not
in their books,war is. John Kennedy had an epiphany and was wanting to make peace with the USSR at the time, after the Cuban crisis,
and this could not be allowed to happen .
David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors,
many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch
hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from
the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies,
and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him.
But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions
to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return.
In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but
himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself.
Stockman has only been a Congressman. They are allowed more leeway.
When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises
to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before
he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people, themselves.
The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White
House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof.
You can't write an article about a 'soft coup' and NOT mention her name in connection with it!
The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power'
is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America.
"In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view
from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia.
This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern
Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's
Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed
out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html
and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off .
Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting
to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their
corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village.
Emotional ignorance and blindness to the rational reality will only lead to more tears.
You think not? When it comes to America's endless wars and conflicts across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, you can't imagine a more-of-the-same scenario eight years into the future? If, in
2009, eight years after the war on terror was launched, as President Obama was preparing to send
a "surge" of
more than 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan (while swearing to end the war in Iraq), I had
written such a futuristic account of America's wars in 2017, you might have been no less unconvinced.
Who would have believed then that political Washington and the U.S. military's high command could
possibly continue on the same brainless path (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say superhighway)
for another eight years? Who would have believed then that, in the fall of 2017, they would be
intensifying their air campaigns across the Greater Middle East, still fighting in Iraq (and
Syria),
supporting a disastrous Saudi war in Yemen, launching the first of yet another set of
mini-surges in Afghanistan, and so on? And who would have believed then that, in return for prosecuting
unsuccessful wars for 16 years while
aiding and abetting in the spread of terror movements across a vast region, three of America's
generals would be the most powerful figures in Washington aside from our bizarre president (whose
election no one could have predicted eight years ago)? Or here's another mind-bender: Would you really
have predicted that, in return for 16 years of
unsuccessful war-making, the U.S. military (and the rest of the national security state) would
be getting
yet more money from the political elite in our nation's capital or would be
thought better of than any other American institution by the public?
Now, I'm the first to admit that we humans are pathetic seers. Peering into the future with any
kind of accuracy has never been part of our skill set. And so my version of 2025 could be way off
base. Given our present world, it might prove to be far too optimistic about our wars.
After all ! just to mention one grim possibility of our moment ! for the first time since 1945,
we're on a planet where nuclear weapons
might be used by either side in the course of a local war, potentially leaving Asia aflame and
possibly the world economy in ruins. And don't even bring up Iran, which I carefully and perhaps
too cautiously didn't include in my list of the 15 countries the U.S. was bombing in 2025 (as opposed
to the
seven at present). And yet, in the same world where they are decrying North Korea's nuclear weapons,
the Trump administration and its U.N. ambassador,
Nikki Haley , seem to be
hard at work creating a situation in which the Iranians could once again be developing ones of
their own. The president has reportedly been desperate to ditch the nuclear agreement Barack Obama
and the leaders of five other major powers signed with Iran in 2015 (though he has
yet to actually do so) and he's stocked his administration with a remarkable crew of Iranophobes,
including CIA Director
Mike Pompeo , Secretary of Defense
James Mattis , and National Security Advisor
H.R. McMaster , all of whom have been itching over the years for some kind of confrontation with
Iran. (And given the last decade and a half of American war fighting in the region, how do you think
that conflict would be likely to turn out?)
Donald Trump's Washington, as John Feffer has recently
pointed out
, is now embarked on a Pyongyang-style "military-first" policy in which resources, money, and power
are heading for the Pentagon and the U.S.
nuclear arsenal , while much of the rest of the government is downsized. Obviously, if that's
where your resources are going, then that's where your efforts and energies will go, too. So don't
expect less war in the years to come, no matter how inept Washington has proven when it comes to
making war work.
... ... ...
Imagine the government of that same country, distracted by its hopeless wars and the terrorist
groups they continue to generate... and not lifting a finger to deal with the situation...
"... But this is one of the good things about having a Deep State, the existence of which has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt since the intelligence community declared war on Trump last November. While it prevents Trump from reaching a reasonable modus vivendi ..."
"... If the U.S. says that Moscow's activities in the eastern Ukraine are illegitimate, then, as the world's sole remaining "hyperpower," it will see to it that Russia suffers accordingly. If China demands more of a say in Central Asia or the western Pacific, then right-thinking folks the world over will shake their heads sadly and accuse it of undermining international democracy, which is always synonymous with U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... There is no one – no institution – that Russia or China can appeal to in such circumstances because the U.S. is also in charge of the appellate division. It is the "indispensable nation" in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, because "we stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future." Given such amazing brilliance, how can any other country possibly object? ..."
"... Next to go was Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, sent packing in October 2001, followed by Slobodan Milosevic, hauled before an international tribunal in 2002; Saddam Hussein, executed in 2006, and Muammar Gaddafi, killed by a mob in 2011. For a while, the world really did seem like " Gunsmoke ," and the U.S. really did seem like Sheriff Matt Dillon. ..."
"... Although The New York Times wrote that U.S. pressure to cut off North Korean oil supplies has put China "in a tight spot," this was nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. There is no reason to think that Xi is the least bit uncomfortable. To the contrary, he is no doubt enjoying himself immensely as he watches America paint itself into yet another corner. ..."
"... Unipolarity will slink off to the sidelines while multilateralism takes center stage. Given that U.S. share of global GDP has fallen by better than 20 percent since 1989, a retreat is inevitable. America has tried to compensate by making maximum use of its military and political advantages. That would be a losing proposition even if it had the most brilliant leadership in the world. Yet it doesn't. Instead, it has a President who is an international laughingstock, a dysfunctional Congress, and a foreign-policy establishment lost in a neocon dream world. As a consequence, retreat is turning into a disorderly rout. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
The bigger picture behind Official Washington's hysteria over Russia, Syria and North
Korea is the image of a decaying but dangerous American hegemon resisting the start of a new
multipolar order, explains Daniel Lazare.
By Daniel Lazare
September 9, 2017
The showdown with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a seminal event that can only
end in one of two ways: a nuclear exchange or a reconfiguration of the international order.
While complacency is always unwarranted, the first seems increasingly unlikely. As no less a
global strategist than Steven Bannon observed about the possibility of a
pre-emptive U.S. strike: "There's no military solution. Forget it. Until somebody solves the
part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30
minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about. There's no military
solution here. They got us."
This doesn't mean that Donald Trump, Bannon's ex-boss, couldn't still do something rash.
After all, this is a man who prides himself on being unpredictable in business negotiations, as
historian William R. Polk, who worked for the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, points out . So maybe
Trump thinks it would be a swell idea to go a bit nuts on the DPRK.
But this is one of the good things about having a Deep State, the existence of which has
been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt since the intelligence community declared war on Trump
last November. While it prevents Trump from reaching a reasonable modus vivendi with
Russia, it also means that the President is continually surrounded by generals, spooks, and
other professionals who know the difference between real estate and nuclear war.
As ideologically fogbound as they may be, they can presumably be counted on to make sure
that Trump does not plunge the world into Armageddon (named, by the way, for a Bronze Age city about 20 miles southeast of
Haifa, Israel).
That leaves option number two: reconfiguration. The two people who know best about the
subject are Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Both have been
chafing for years under a new world order in which one nation gets to serve as judge, jury, and
high executioner. This, of course, is the United States.
If the U.S. says that Moscow's activities in the eastern Ukraine are illegitimate, then, as
the world's sole remaining "hyperpower," it will see to it that Russia suffers accordingly. If
China demands more of a say in Central Asia or the western Pacific, then right-thinking folks
the world over will shake their heads sadly and accuse it of undermining international
democracy, which is always synonymous with U.S. foreign policy.
There is no one – no institution – that Russia or China can appeal to in such
circumstances because the U.S. is also in charge of the appellate division. It is the
"indispensable nation" in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under
Bill Clinton, because "we stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future."
Given such amazing brilliance, how can any other country possibly object?
Challenging the Rule-Maker
But now that a small and beleaguered state on the Korean peninsula is outmaneuvering the
United States and forcing it to back off, the U.S. no longer seems so far-sighted. If North
Korea really has checkmated the U.S., as Bannon says, then other states will want to do the
same. The American hegemon will be revealed as an overweight 71-year-old man naked except for
his bouffant hairdo.
Not that the U.S. hasn't suffered setbacks before. To the contrary, it was forced to accept
the Castro regime following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and it suffered a massive defeat
in Vietnam in 1975. But this time is different. Where both East and West were expected to parry
and thrust during the Cold War, giving as good as they got, the U.S., as the global hegemon,
must now do everything in its power to preserve its aura of invincibility.
Since 1989, this has meant knocking over a string of "bad guys" who had the bad luck to get
in its way. First to go was Manuel Noriega, toppled six weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall
in an invasion that cost the lives of as many as 500 Panamanian soldiers and
possibly thousands of civilians as well.
Next to go was Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, sent packing in October 2001, followed by
Slobodan Milosevic, hauled before an international tribunal in 2002; Saddam Hussein, executed
in 2006, and Muammar Gaddafi, killed by a mob in 2011. For a while, the world really did seem
like " Gunsmoke ," and the U.S. really did
seem like Sheriff Matt Dillon.
But then came a few bumps in the road. The Obama administration cheered on a
Nazi-spearheaded coup d'état in Kiev in early 2014 only to watch helplessly as Putin,
under intense popular pressure, responded by detaching Crimea, which historically had been part
of Russia and was home to the strategic Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and bringing it back
into Russia.
Backed by Russia, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dealt Washington another blow by driving
U.S.-backed, pro-Al Qaeda forces out of East Aleppo in December 2016. Predictably, the
Huffington Post compared the Syrian offensive to the fascist
bombing of Guernica .
Fire and Fury
Finally, beginning in March, North Korea's Kim Jong Un entered into a game of one-upmanship
with Trump, firing ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan,
test-firing an ICBM that might be capable
of hitting California , and then exploding a hydrogen warhead roughly
eight times as powerful as the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima in 1945. When Trump vowed
to respond "with fire, fury, and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen
before," Kim upped the ante by firing a missile over the northern Japanese island of
Hokkaido.
As bizarre as Kim's behavior can be at times, there is method to his madness. As Putin
explained during the BRICS summit with Brazil, India, China, and South Africa, the DPRK's
"supreme leader" has seen how America destroyed Libya and Iraq and has therefore concluded that
a nuclear delivery system is the only surefire guarantee against U.S. invasion.
"We all remember what happened with Iraq and Saddam Hussein," he
said . "His children were killed, I think his grandson was shot, the whole country was
destroyed and Saddam Hussein was hanged . We all know how this happened and people in North
Korea remember well what happened in Iraq . They will eat grass but will not stop their nuclear
program as long as they do not feel safe."
Since Kim's actions are ultimately defensive in nature, the logical solution would be for
the U.S. to pull back and enter into negotiations. But Trump, desperate to save face, quickly
ruled it out. "Talking is not the answer!" he tweeted . Yet the
result of such bluster is only to make America seem more helpless than ever.
Although The New York Times wrote
that U.S. pressure to cut off North Korean oil supplies has put China "in a tight spot," this
was nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. There is no reason to think that Xi is the
least bit uncomfortable. To the contrary, he is no doubt enjoying himself immensely as he
watches America paint itself into yet another corner.
The U.S. Corner
If Trump backs down at this point, the U.S. standing in the region will suffer while China's
will be correspondingly enhanced. On the other hand, if Trump does something rash, it will be a
golden opportunity for Beijing, Moscow, or both to step in as peacemakers. Japan and South
Korea will have no choice but to recognize that there are now three arbiters in the region
instead of just one while other countries – the Philippines, Indonesia, and maybe even
Australia and New Zealand – will have to follow suit.
Unipolarity will slink off to the sidelines while multilateralism takes center stage. Given
that U.S. share of global GDP has fallen
by better than 20 percent since 1989, a retreat is inevitable. America has tried to
compensate by making maximum use of its military and political advantages. That would be a
losing proposition even if it had the most brilliant leadership in the world. Yet it doesn't.
Instead, it has a President who is an international laughingstock, a dysfunctional Congress,
and a foreign-policy establishment lost in a neocon dream world. As a consequence, retreat is
turning into a disorderly rout.
Assuming a mushroom cloud doesn't go up over Los Angeles, the world is going to be a very
different place coming out of the Korean crisis than when it went in. Of course, if a mushroom
cloud does go up, it will be even more so.
* Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Yesterday, Trump spoke in front of the United Nations and declared that, if necessary, the
United States would do "what it needed to do" to protect itself against North Korean threats.
Standing on the floor of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump stated:
"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself
or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a
suicide mission for himself."
This isn't the first time Trump has threatened North Korea with the prospect of nuclear war.
Just last month, he promised to "unleash fire and fury" against the country, which had just
launched its own ballistic missile over neighboring Japan. Since then, tensions have been
mounting.
But as the two countries move closer to the brink of nuclear war, the world is about to
celebrate the 34th anniversary of the nuclear war that almost was.
Apocalypse Almost
Stanislav Petrov was working the overnight shift on September 26, 1983 when he inadvertently
saved the world from nuclear war.
The heightened tension between the two global superpowers made the decision forced on Petrov
even more grave.
As a lieutenant colonel in the Soviet Union's Air Defense Forces, Petrov was tasked with
monitoring the country's satellites, looking for possible nuclear weapons launched by the
United States. There was nothing particularly unusual about this shift until the alarms began
to sound at dawn.
The alarm had indicated a warning that America had launched five nuclear intercontinental
ballistic missiles. And it was Petrov's job to sound the alarm that would initiate a
retaliation before it was too late.
"The siren howled, but I just sat there for a few seconds, staring at the big, back-lit, red
screen with the word 'launch' on it," Petrov remembered.
Earlier that same month, the Cold War had further escalated after the USSR had shot down a
Korean commercial airliner that had flown into its airspace. The incident resulted in the
deaths of 269 people including a United States Congressman from Georgia, Larry McDonald.
The heightened tensions between the two global superpowers made the decision forced on
Petrov even more grave.
Petrov recalled:
"There was no rule about how long we were allowed to think before we reported a strike.
But we knew that every second of procrastination took away valuable time, that the Soviet
Union's military and political leadership needed to be informed without delay. All I had to
do was to reach for the phone; to raise the direct line to our top commanders ! but I
couldn't move. I felt like I was sitting on a hot frying pan."
Countless Lives Saved
Petrov hesitated because he had a gut instinct that something was off. This technology was
still fairly new, and he was sure it had some kinks to be worked out. In his training, he was
taught that any strike from the U.S. would most likely come as a full-fledged attack. Yet, the
satellite system was only showing a handful of missiles. This hardly constituted all-out
warfare. What if the satellite was incorrect? Was he willing to call in his superiors and start
a nuclear war over a system error?
On the other hand, if the monitors were correct, Petrov only had 20 minutes to act before
the missiles struck. After a torturous internal debate, Petrov decided not to act in haste. He
quickly checked to see if the satellite had malfunctioned, causing it to report a false
launch.
He soon discovered that there had in fact been an error and no missiles had been launched at
all.
If Petrov had simply sounded the alarm for his superiors, as he was trained and ordered to
do, there is a good chance counterstrikes would have been launched on behalf of the USSR and
the world may not be as it is today.
Commenting on this historic event that almost was, arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis told
NPR:
"[Petrov] just had this feeling in his gut that it wasn't right. It was five missiles. It
didn't seem like enough. So even though by all of the protocols he had been trained to
follow, he should absolutely have reported that up the chain of command and, you know, we
should be talking about the great nuclear war of 1983 if any of us survived."
The New Cold War
Petrov passed away in May of this year, avoiding having to witness America's current
flirtation with nuclear war.
The escalation between the United States and North Korea builds by the day.
Aside from the Cuban Missile Crisis, the September 26th incident was the closest the
United States had ever been to a nuclear war ! until now.
The escalation between the United States and North Korea builds by the day. As each
president continues to taunt the other, either by showing off military might or dishing out
childish insults, the world gets closer to the possibility of nuclear war: one that could also
involve the nuclear arsenals of China, even Russia. Unlike Petrov, neither world leader has
taken a moment to fully think this through. A nuclear war is in absolutely no one's
interest.
The US government has been ratcheting up tensions with nuclear Russia over Ukraine and the
Middle East and with nuclear China over North Korea and disputed islands in the South China
Sea. As relations between nuclear powers deteriorate, incidents like what happened on September
26, 1983 become more likely. We're all alive today because a man like Stanislav Petrov was the
one on duty that day. Will we be so fortunate the next time? What if a more obedient and "by
the book" officer is at the helm the next time a system malfunctions or a message is
miscommunicated when nuclear stakes are on the line? As a BBC article reported:
He says he was the only officer in his team who had received a civilian education. "My
colleagues were all professional soldiers, they were taught to give and obey orders," he told
us.
So, he believes, if somebody else had been on shift, the alarm would have been raised.
Petrov was ominously right when he said, "...they were lucky it was me on shift that night."
There was no public outrage over this increase. Meanwhile Russia cut
its 2018 defense budget by 25.5% down to a total of some $48 billion.
There is obviously little fear in Russia that the U.S. budget increase will effect U.S.
military capabilities. The Russians are right. Most of the Pentagon budget goes to waste. The
military as well as the politicians know this well.
Not to mention that Nato itself is now featuring in a 3-week long gigantic military exercise
in Sweden against Russia, right now on Russia's doorstep, apparently that is just fine
according to the same lying journalists that fearmongered and 24/7-lied about Zapad.
Russia is clearly undermining the security of the United States, and by extension Israel, by
intentionally not wasting as much money on their defense as we do. This is outrageous!
The UN should demand that Russia - at the very least - buy our F-35 to stabilize the balance
of terror... er, power.
'Efficient defense spending' by Russia is tantamount to a declaration of war on the US. We
know what you're up to Putin, and you're NOT going to get away with it!
I'm shocked that Russia has apparently cut their 2018 defence budget by a quarter. They have
so many long lead time items they need to replace (such as subs and surface ships), not to
mention their restarting of Tu-160 production and upgrading of current bombers. Their '5th
gen' Sukoi is nearing production, and they've just completed design of Armata armoured
vehicle family. They are also getting ready to replace the SS-18 'satan' land based nuclear
missiles which are nearing end of life.
They have sufficient foreign currency reserves, I find this baffling. All of the things
mentioned above require years if not a decade or more to build up institutional expertise in
the production facilities that are supposed to build these large and complex machines.
The BBC has just reported that the u. s. Air Force has staged another show at the North
Korean border. It's called demonstrating military strength. Dumb as hell.
The numbers are different, according to Jane's article published few days ago:
2018: -5%
2019: +3.7%
2020: -0.5%
The Russian defence budget is expected to be cut by approximately 5.0% to RUB2.73 trillion
(USD47.13 billion) in 2018, according to budgetary guidance published by the Ministry of
Finance. The reduction in spending is in line with plans laid out under the previous
2017–19 budget.
According to the document outlining the main directions of budgetary policy for
2018–20, spending on National Defence is expected to receive a 3.7% increase in 2019
to reach RUB2.83 trillion before a further marginal 0.5% cut in 2020 to RUB2.82 trillion.
The new plans are in line with previous projections for 2018. However, the defence
allocation for 2019 is around 0.5% higher than previously expected.
While b conclusions are right, ABMMS DOES NOT WORK is not because bullet argument but cheap
countermeasures, like multiple warheads per single missile, up to 20, up to 9 nukes and 11
decoys capable of simulating small nukes explosions via radioactive gas explosions,
realeasing suppose products of fusion or fission.
Moreover, ballistic missiles have guided non ballistic heads, highly unpredictable
trajectory, almost impossible to shoot down at hypersonic speeds.
Moreover all scenarios assume satellite war that would impair any practical tracking.
The only possible but not guaranteed way to shoot down ICBM is to be located very near the
launch site, but even that approach fails for nuke subs.
But most of all , the true reason of futility of the ICBM defense are cheap electronic
countermeasures, creating fake signatures of thousands of launches from variety of locations,
impossible to track and recognize fake from real within just few minutes window to act.
When hell breaks loose real hell will brake loose and rulers will have minutes to hide in
their bunker tunnels while we incinerate.
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's
actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
If the NYT could only hear its own logic, in your quoted article - "If the American
antimissile systems missed...it would undercut confidence in an infrastructure the United
States has spent $300 billion..."
In other words, We don't dare test it because it may not work. And it's a system
intended exactly for the purpose of working, and for no other purpose.
The smart engineering managers push aggressively for a new design to fail as early in its
development as possible. As Google (yes, I know, but their IT has always been groundbreaking)
always said, better to spend $20 million and scrap an idea entirely than to invest a billion
in something that's going to give problems.
I have a suspicion the Russians operate the same way - although their particular thing
seems to be to build well to begin with, and constantly add improvements over time. They seem
to love to tinker. And the Saker said once that the Russians love their weapons. They love to
build as many different types of weapon as they can think of.
~~
I read somewhere an analysis of the Russian budget cut that explained how this was not
going to result in lowered performance anywhere in the RF military. It may have been
Mercouris at the Duran, who is good with this kind of demystifying.
The difference lay, as I recall, in the fact that the military budget had already been
under a bit of supercharging for the last few years, and was now easing back to normal. In
other words, a budget reduction speaks of past success rather than future failure.
I think we're accustomed to thinking that a budget cut is punishment or will reduce
services. In RF it's just an annual allocation of money according to plan. And the MIC is run
by soldiers - all materiel and weaponry is designed to meet the specifications of soldiers.
In the US the designers lead the process and the soldiers have to take what results.
Anyone who wonders can rest assured that Russia is not going to let its military
capabilities plummet.
"The only possible but not guaranteed way to shoot down ICBM is to be located very near the
launch site, but even that approach fails for nuke subs."
Another problem is that the Eurasia is big. From Wiki: the Eurasian Pole of
Inaccessibility (or "EPIA") 46°17′N 86°40′E, in China's Xinjiang region
near the Kazakhstan border. Calculations have commonly suggested that this point, located in
the Dzoosotoyn Elisen Desert, is 2,645 km (1,644 miles) from the nearest coastline. Russia
had a lot of places that are more than 2000 km from the sea, and the nearby sea is the Arctic
Ocean, so the interceptors would need to be stationed under ice and close to Russian
observators. So it is like intercepting Atlantic submarine launched missiles from
Wyoming.
Begin with a huge pile of money and a bunch of crooked congressmen. Commence bidding
process. Disburse funds according to the most crooked congressmen and distribute parts
production to a number of states. Prioritize "right to work" states. Institute local and
federal tax incentives. Line insurance companies' pockets. Maybe parts fit together to
produce a cohesive unit. If not, make new parts with significant cost overruns and delays. Be
sure to attain cost overruns and ensure that money falls into the right pockets. Common
workers must benefit the least. Rinse and repeat as needed.
It's, maybe, because 1st Guards Tank Army is there. :O
The elite unit (Kursk, Moscow, Berlin, Stalingrad) that is going to receive T-14 tank and
new APC.
But not all west's outlets are sharing a view of what is of Anglo-Saxon's origin and view
that is "...zoological hatred against other peoples" (G. Dimitrov).
One non-Anglos, a puppet through and through, who has fully participated in this
propaganda is the Secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg. The second one is the UK Secretary of
Defence.
Of course on the top is the US political/military establishment and Obama's General NATO
ex-commander (retired) General Philip Breedlove. So this is not the Trump's affair. It is
continuation and taken from previous administration. For him Spiegel says: He is the super
hawk. He is so extreme that even German gov. was alarmed.
"The pattern has become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on
Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the
amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again,
Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of
America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the
hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.
The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at
mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to
Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General
Secretary Jens Stoltenberg."
Certainly OT for this thread; however, elsewhere I announced that Syria would not have its
representative speak at the UNGA as stated by the UNGA's schedule of speakers. Fortunately,
I was incorrect and H.E. Walid Al-Moualem, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign
Affairs and Expatriates addressed the UNGA, although I don't know how full the hall was
during his speech. It's a very pointed and critical speech as one would imagine, although
the Minister's diplomatic enough to not directly name particular nations aside from the
Zionist Abomination. The transcript's available in pdf here, https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/72/sy_en.pdf
Maybe it's just one of those far-out ideas, but perhaps the waste is not simply
waste, but certain aspects of the black world's investigation of (radically) alternative
weapons systems or entirely non-standard ways of waging war, from large scale
geoengineering to multidimensional or non-linear warfare. It's a crazy universe, and we're
not all invited to The Show.
Or, suppose it's all just conventional padding and profits, where does the money go once
it goes to the MIC? How do they distribute the money? I think a lot of the comments
deploring USA's commitment to MIC profits stop at the money ending up in corporations, but
once there, where does the money go?
Gleiwitz incident, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, are not working.
"There are plenty of examples. Just over three weeks ago, during the cease-fire talks in
Minsk, the Ukrainian military warned that the Russians -- even as the diplomatic marathon
was ongoing -- had moved 50 tanks and dozens of rockets across the border into Luhansk.
Just one day earlier, US Lieutenant General Ben Hodges had announced "direct Russian
military intervention."
Senior officials in Berlin immediately asked the BND for an assessment, but the
intelligence agency's satellite images showed just a few armored vehicles. Even those
American intelligence officials who supply the BND with daily situation reports were much
more reserved about the incident than Hodges was in his public statements. One intelligence
agent says it "remains a riddle until today" how the general reached his conclusions."
"Due to his lacking of common knowledge and proper sentiment, he tried to insult the
supreme dignity of my country by comparing it to a rocket. By doing so, however, he made an
irreversible mistake of making our rockets visit the entire US mainland inevitable all the
more.
None other than Trump himself is on a suicidal mission. In case that innocent lives in
US are harmed because of this suicide attack, Trump will be responsible.
The respected supreme leader of DPRK [said Trump] will pay dearly for his speech calling
for total destruction of DPRK."
North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho addressing the UN General Assembly:
"... In partnership with Niven, Pournelle's science-fiction married aggressive military might with Atlas Shrugged-style techno-futurist fantasies and nativist paranoia, offering what in retrospect looks like an uncannily prescient portrait of the Trump era and its cultural overtones. ..."
"... Lucifer's Hammer, ..."
"... "They'll all be here, all that can get here," Christopher shouted. "Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin, and what's left of San Francisco How long can we keep it up, lettin' those people come here?" ..."
"... "Be n**gers too," someone shouted from the floor. He looked self-consciously at two black faces at the end of the room. "Okay, sorry!no. I'm not sorry. Lucius, you own land. You work it. But city n**gers, whining about equality!you don't want 'em either!" ..."
"... The black man said nothing. He seemed to shrink away from the group, and he sat very quietly with his son. ..."
"... "Lucius Carter's all right," George Christopher said. "But Frank's right about the others. City people. Tourists. Hippies. Be here in droves pretty soon. We have to stop them." ..."
"... Lucifer's Hammer ..."
"... Lucifer's Hammer ..."
"... Before he was great he had been George Washington Carver Davis. His mother had been proud of that name. She'd said the family was named for Jefferson Davis. That honky had been a tough dude, but it was a loser's name, no power in it ... Alim Nassor meant wise conqueror in both Arabic and Swahili. Not many knew what it meant, and so what? The name had power And he could still walk into City Hall and get in to see people. He'd been able to do that ever since he broke up a riot with his switchblade and the razor blades in his shoes and the chain he carried around his waist. There was all that Federal money around for a tough dude. The honkies shoveled out money. Anything for quiet in the black ghetto. It had been a damn good game, and too bad it was over. ..."
"... Lucifer's Hammer ..."
"... Oath of Fealty ..."
"... Oath of Fealty ..."
"... Another obsession of Pournelle, who worked for years in the aerospace industry, was military conflict and how that might play out on, and beyond, our Earth. In the 80's, he served as chair of the Citizen Advisory Council on National Space Policy. Alongside astronauts and physicists, the council included sci-fi luminaries such as Niven, Robert Heinlein, Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, and publisher Jim Baen. ..."
"... Pournelle's council provided the blueprint for SDI! as the author explained , Reagan's 1983 speech inaugurating the "Star Wars" project came from work the council had done beginning in 1980. And in 1984, Baen published Pournelle's Mutual Assured Survival ..."
"... Window of Opportunity: A Blueprint for the Future ..."
"... Window of Opportunity ..."
"... There Will Be War ..."
"... Oath of Fealty ..."
"... Because I don't share the black experience? That's what my roommate at Howard would have said. ..."
"... Or because we're all doing something we believe in? We're running a civilization, something new in this world, and don't bother to tell me how small it is. It's a civilization. The first one in a long time where people can feel safe. ..."
Star Wars & God Emperors
The Sci-Fi Roots of the Far Right!From 'Lucifer's Hammer' to
Newt's Moon Base to Donald's Wall
Pournelle, Gingrich and Trump see a future that must be secured
by authoritarian institutions that group together humanity's best and prevent
the rest from stifling them.
09.17.17 1:00 AM ET
There is a tendency to see President Donald Trump as
a radical break from the past.
But conservative techno-futurist Newt Gingrich
sees Trump as ushering in a revolution ! with a subsequent utopian
space-age.Gingrich has envisioned such a breakthrough, and hopes Trump will
be an agent of it, for decades. Gingrich's vision is one stop on a straight
line that goes through his friend and legendary science-fiction novelist
Jerry Pournelle's
Lucifer's
Hammer
to Ronald Reagan's
Star Wars to Bill Clinton's impeachment to Trump.
Pournelle !
who died earlier this month
! first rose to prominence as part of
an influential group of right-wing science-fiction writers
in the 1970s and 1980s that also included Larry Niven, David Drake, Janet
Morris, and S. M. Stirling. All envisioned the best of a militarized
humanity breaking away from the evils of bureaucracy and bleeding-hearts and
aggressively colonizing and conquering space, exploiting its military and
financial potential. Unlike most conservatives, all were less concerned with
preserving the past for its own sake than for planning for the future!their
preferred future.
In partnership with Niven, Pournelle's
science-fiction married aggressive military might with Atlas Shrugged-style
techno-futurist fantasies and nativist paranoia, offering what in retrospect
looks like an uncannily prescient portrait of the Trump era and its cultural
overtones. Take, for example, the pair's Hugo-nominated 1977 novel
Lucifer's Hammer,
which depicts a small ranch of patriotic American farmers as they struggle
to survive after a comet hits earth. Early on, the farmers debate how to
keep out undesirables:
"They'll all be here, all that can get here,"
Christopher shouted. "Los Angeles, and the San Joaquin, and what's left of
San Francisco How long can we keep it up, lettin' those people come here?"
"Be n**gers too," someone shouted from the
floor. He looked self-consciously at two black faces at the end of the room.
"Okay, sorry!no. I'm not sorry. Lucius, you own land. You work it. But city
n**gers, whining about equality!you don't want 'em either!"
The black man said nothing. He seemed to
shrink away from the group, and he sat very quietly with his son.
Relate"Lucius Carter's all right," George
Christopher said. "But Frank's right about the others. City people.
Tourists. Hippies. Be here in droves pretty soon. We have to stop them."
This kind of scene ! the asterisks are mine; they
spelled the word out ! plays on the same fears Trump stoked in his campaign
of immigrants and undesirables invading the "real" America. Yet Pournelle
and Niven yoked this divisiveness to an Ayn Randian view of technological
progress, in which there are those who work and those who leech.
In
Lucifer's Hammer
, the
free-thinking libertarian survivors, naturally, win the day over their
wrong-thinking competition. The hippy-dippy Shire collective, who attempt to
rebuild society according to principles of socialism and environmentalism,
is wiped out because of its weakness, forced to submit to the cannibalistic
New Brotherhood Army!led by the inhumane Sergeant Hooker, a black man.
Strong leader Senator Jellison (who is white) then asks former Shire founder
Hugo Beck what went wrong, and Beck says his fellow hippies just never
realized how great technology and laissez-faire economics were, and now all
his old friends are dining on human flesh under the thumb of a scary black
communist.
We also learn that the New Brotherhood Army is
very politically correct!they are genuine Social Justice
Warriors
!and
forces equality on its members: "And you never say anything bad about
blacks, or chicanos, or anybody else. First couple of days they just slap
you for it but if you don't learn fast they figure you're not really
converted "
One antagonist of
Lucifer's Hammer
is Alim
Nassor, a black man who loots during the day of the comet, then goes on to
start a gang that eventually links up with the New Brotherhood Army. (At one
point, he kills a follower who won't eat human flesh.) Nassor's name is of
his own choosing:
Before he was great he had been George
Washington Carver Davis. His mother had been proud of that name. She'd said
the family was named for Jefferson Davis. That honky had been a tough dude,
but it was a loser's name, no power in it ... Alim Nassor meant wise
conqueror in both Arabic and Swahili. Not many knew what it meant, and so
what? The name had power And he could still walk into City Hall and get in
to see people. He'd been able to do that ever since he broke up a riot with
his switchblade and the razor blades in his shoes and the chain he carried
around his waist. There was all that Federal money around for a tough dude.
The honkies shoveled out money. Anything for quiet in the black ghetto. It
had been a damn good game, and too bad it was over.
Today,
Lucifer's Hammer
reads as a
depiction of a post-apocalyptic war between Trump counties and Clinton
counties, simultaneously promising American renewal even as it depicts
unavoidable catastrophe. The comet acts as a cleansing, wiping away so much
dead wood of civilization. (Feminism, too, comes in for repeated knocks.)
Pournelle and Niven's attitude toward
civil-rights struggles and feminism wavers between condescension and
irritation. Progressive issues are bumps on the road of progress. At their
most dangerous, they radicalize lumpen segments of the population into
dangerous terrorists: Antifa is one step on the way to the New Brotherhood
Army.
They attempted to address race more
sympathetically in 1981's
Oath of Fealty
, making one
of the main characters, Preston Sanders, black. ("His family had never been
enslaved," they write.) But since Sanders' first words are affirming to the
genius John Galtian protagonist (named, not coincidentally, Tony Rand) that
the white hero isn't prejudiced, it's not terribly convincing.
Oath of Fealty
chronicles the conflict between a futuristic, closed city!a privately-run,
utopian "arcology" that elevates the best and the brightest!and the
backwards-looking bureaucratic government of a Los Angeles in urban decline.
The corporate-run, authoritarian arcology does an end-run around all of Los
Angeles' pesky government and regulations, which turn out to bring great
benefits to Los Angeles as a side effect. When ecoterrorists led by an evil
UCLA sociology professor attack the arcology, the arcology plays its trump
card by harming LA's infrastructure, which they have done so much to improve
and operate. Check and mate.
Another
obsession of Pournelle, who worked for years in the aerospace industry, was
military conflict and how that might play out on, and beyond, our Earth. In
the 80's, he served as chair of the Citizen Advisory Council on National
Space Policy. Alongside astronauts and physicists, the council included
sci-fi luminaries such as Niven, Robert Heinlein, Greg Bear, Gregory Benford,
and publisher Jim Baen.
The council also included Ronald Reagan's adviser
Lt. General Daniel O. Graham, whose advocacy firm High Frontier provided the
primary political push for the president's Strategic Defense Initiative
(SDI). Better known as "Star Wars," SDI represented the ultimate
science-fiction defense project, a "shield" aimed at shooting down nuclear
missiles with lasers from land and from space.
Pournelle's council provided the blueprint for
SDI!
as
the author explained
,
Reagan's 1983 speech inaugurating the "Star Wars" project came from work the
council had done beginning in 1980. And in 1984, Baen published Pournelle's
Mutual Assured Survival
,
based on the council's reports on how to defend against intercontinental
ballistic missiles!"ICBM'S [sic] WILL SOON BE OBSOLETE," the cover
declares!and blurbed by Ronald Reagan himself.
SDI was only one part of a larger right-wing
techno-futurist project. SDI historian Edward Linenthal cites
a 1983 interview with Newt Gingrich
in which the young conservative Congressman predicted that SDI would not
just destroy Russia's Communists but liberalism, too. SDI would be "a dagger
at the heart of the liberal welfare state" because it destroys "the liberal
myth of scarcity," leaving only "the limits of a free people's ingenuity,
daring, and courage."
A year later, in 1984, science-fiction publisher
Tor Books issued Gingrich's first book,
Window of Opportunity: A Blueprint for the
Future
, which had also
been commissioned by publisher Jim Baen. Co-written with science-fiction
writers David Drake and Janet Morris as well as Gingrich's then-wife
Marianne,
Window of
Opportunity
has one leg
firmly planted in the geek world. The preface was written by Pournelle, who
praised Gingrich's "practical program that not only proves that we can all
get rich, but shows how."
Gingrich subsequently secured a job for
Pournelle's son with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in 1994, who like Gingrich
is now a stalwart space booster and Trump supporter.
Gingrich's futurist political perspective has
long differentiated him from many Republicans. He distinguished himself
early on with his interest in space, drawn partly from
his fascination
with
large-scope future histories like Isaac Asimov's
Foundation trilogy. When
Gingrich told his aides to read the
Foundation trilogy and one asked
what the books had to do with politics, Gingrich replied: "
I'm
a figure who thinks in terms of 100-year increments and I think in terms of
civilization's rising and falling over 500-year increments
."
Central to his failed 2012 presidential run was the plan for an American
moonbase by 2020.
In their science fiction as in life, Gingrich and
Pournelle shared an optimistic belief in power of technology!and an equally
powerful insistence on the inevitability of conflict. They believed this
required a robust, authoritarian state apparatus to preserve order and bind
citizens together. Indeed, while backing Reagan, Gingrich had promoted a
techno-futurism that was less conservative than it was authoritarian: he
called for pruning inefficiency while aggressively promoting expansion and
military technology. For his part, Pournelle published anthologies of
science-fiction and techno-military essays through the 1980s under the name
There Will Be War
.
Under Reagan, that inevitable conflict was with
Red Russia. But with communism a fading threat by the late 80's, Gingrich
shifted his focus to the specter of a new enemy, arguing in 1989 that "
Islamic
extremism may well be the greatest threat to Western values and Western
security in the world
." Such
fear-mongering!Islamic extremism remains a fraction as destructive as the
nuclear Soviet Union!may seem ill-suited to optimism in mankind's future,
but as a political project it can be uncannily effective. Pournelle wrote
that Islam demands adherence to a principle of "
Islam
or the sword
," and that an
aggressive military response is not only justified but demanded:
we are at war with the Caliphate
.
Given Trump's aggression and autocratic
tendencies, it makes sense that Gingrich steadfastly supported him from the
beginning, encouraging and advising his campaign. During election season,
Gingrich spoke with Trump daily
.
Gingrich views Trump as a tool to get America to where he wants to go
faster. "Trump must keep going at breakneck speed to keep his opponents off
balance," he writes. He's also expressed hope that the Trump era will
provide the conditions for future space travel: "With a few breaks and some
entrepreneurial daring, Americans could land on Mars either in Trump's last
year of his second term or in the first term of his successor."
Trump's ideology and governing style are far from
a perfect fit for the conservative techno-futurists. Gingrich has expressed
frustration with Trump's lack of focus, and Trump lacks any clear vision of
the future beyond making America great again. Still, for Pournelle,
Trump beats anyone else out there
:
"Trump is not a movement conservative, but his inclination is to set goals
and get people working on them, not to jail and fine them for not doing so.
Compared to Hillary or Sanders or anyone in Obama's train, I'll take Trump
any day. Trump is a pragmatic populist. I can live with that."
One of the things Gingrich admires about Trump,
as he told me in an interview, is the president's sheer capacity for change
and interruption: "Trump is the personification of enormous underlying
forces, an eruption of personality and capability in which you then have to
reset your analysis around their reality."
In speaking to me, Gingrich also celebrated Trump
as a "disruptive politician" on the order of Andrew Jackson and Abraham
Lincoln.
In other words, Gingrich and Pournelle's
enthusiasm had less to do with Trump's particular ambitions than with his
capacity for destruction of the status quo. Much of the chaos Trump foments
is, to Gingrich and Pournelle, a key feature to induce the future they
want!the one where the feminists and "eco-terrorists" and university
professors are soundly defeated. Gingrich has always been fond of
revolution, as evidenced by one rationale he quoted for supporting Trump: "
We
have to kick over the table in Washington.
"
(Or as he wrote in 1984: "
Revolutions
have to occur fast or not at all
.")
What Trump does is less important than the fact that he kicks over the
table, strengthening America's military state while demolishing bureaucracy
and ignoring niceties. Democracy and law matter less than security and
innovation.
We're back at authoritarianism!the through-line
for Trump and Pournelle and Gingrich alike. Indeed, many of Trump's online
supporters refer to him as "God Emperor" with varying levels of irony,
referring in part to the benevolent tyrant of Frank Herbert's
Dune
series, Leto II, who transforms himself into a gigantic worm in order to
direct humanity on his "Golden Path" for 3,500 years.
Pournelle and Niven charted their own Golden Path
in
Oath of Fealty
.
Early in that book, black protagonist Preston Sanders, reflects on why he
hates the rich white bigots of the arcology less than the preppie liberals
he grew up with:
Because I don't share the black experience?
That's what my roommate at Howard would have said.
Or because we're all doing something we
believe in? We're running a civilization, something new in this world, and
don't bother to tell me how small it is. It's a civilization. The first one
in a long time where people can feel safe.
The only things standing in the way of that
Golden Path are the liberal bureaucrats and wrong-thinkers that Gingrich
elsewhere termed the "prison guards of the past (who) use centralized
bureaucracy, litigation, regulations, and red tape to delay or kill break
through innovations in many fields. They squander America's potential in
order to protect their privileges and their old ideas, and they rely on our
complacency not to do anything about it."
And those guards, in Gingrich's view, are so
wedded to their ideologies that nothing short of outright conflict will sway
them. Or
as Trump said of the media in his Arizona speech
,
"These are sick people. You would think they'd want to make our country
great again, and I honestly believe they don't."
No science-fiction writer since has exerted as
significant a political influence as Pournelle. But Pournelle does have a
spiritual successor in Castalia House, the independent science-fiction
publisher run by white nationalist Theodore Beale, aka Vox Day. Beale, like
Gingrich, has said that
his job is to save Western Civilization
!and
that it is in dire need of saving. Beale, however, is far more explicit
about race. In his definition of the Alt-Right, Beale
proposes the 14th tenet
,
"The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a
future for white children," stressing that homogeneous ethno-states are the
only viable future for the world!and that the United States must be a white,
Christian ethno-state. Though Beale has repeatedly denounced neo-Nazis, this
tenet is near identical with the "Fourteen Words" of white supremacy, and
its placement as the fourteenth item reads as a dog whistle.
Pournelle has dissociated himself from Beale's
politics, but Castalia House's republishing of Pournelle's 1980s
There Will Be War
series (as well as publishing a new volume 10) is no mere coincidence.
Rather, they are indications of a shared worldview. To these writers, civil
rights, equality, and civil liberties are irritants and impediments to
progress at best. At worst, they are impositions on the holy forces of the
market and social Darwinism ("evolution in action") that sort out the best
from the rest. And to all of them, the best tend to be white (with a bit of
space for "the good ones" of other races). If there has been a shift in
thought between the 1970s and today, it's that the expected separation of
wheat from chaff hasn't taken place, and so now more active measures need to
be taken!building the border walls and deportations, for example. Trump is
an agent of these active measures!an agent of revolution, or at least the
destruction that precedes a revolution.
The line that connects Pournelle, Gingrich and
Trump is a view that the future must be secured through aggressive force,
and specifically through authoritarian institutions (governmental or
non-governmental) that group together humanity's best and prevent the rest
from stifling them. The difficulty, as always, lies in identifying "the
best," and in who's doing the identification.
Whether in the apocalypse of
Lucifer's Hammer
or the quasi-utopia of
Oath
of Fealty
, there will be
war between the visionaries and the prison guards!and the visionaries will
win.
"... Sustainable Security: Rethinking American National Security ..."
"... There has been neither a major retrenchment, nor even a debate over whether such a retrenchment is warranted or wise. In other words, Valentino noted, we seem headed for the worst of all worlds: status quo by default. ..."
"... The window hasn't closed on a serious strategic debate, but the ball is now in Congress's hands . Alas, nearly everyone in Congress seems utterly disinterested. ..."
"... Christopher Preble is vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute and the author of ..."
"The United States needs a new set of ideas and principles to justify its worthwhile
international commitments, and curtail ineffective obligations where necessary," argue Jeremi
Suri and Benjamin Valentino, in the introduction to their edited volume Sustainable
Security: Rethinking American National Security .
"Balancing our means and ends requires a deep reevaluation of U.S. strategy, as the choices
made today will shape the direction of U.S. security policy for decades to come."
... ... ...
In a recent discussion at the Cato Institute, Valentino observed how the reaction to Trump's
victory had divided into two camps.
One side was gripped with utter horror. A vast array of policy insiders!on both the left and
the right!were appalled by the mere suggestion that the United States would revisit any of its
international obligations, or abandon long-time allies. Even Barack Obama, who defied the
foreign policy establishment from time-to-time, urged the incoming president "to sustain the
international order that's expanded steadily since the end of the Cold War." "American
leadership in this world really is indispensable," Obama explained
in a letter to his successor.
Another group of individuals was willing to entertain challenges to the status quo. Though
largely appalled by Trump's antics and rhetoric, they were cautiously optimistic that his rise
would stimulate a long-overdue grand strategic debate.
Both sides were wrong. There has been neither a major retrenchment, nor even a debate over
whether such a retrenchment is warranted or wise. In other words, Valentino noted, we seem
headed for the worst
of all worlds: status quo by default.
The window hasn't closed on a serious strategic debate, but the ball is now in Congress's
hands .
Alas, nearly everyone in Congress seems utterly disinterested.
Consider, for example, the stifling of any discussion surrounding a new Authorization for
Use of Military Force (AUMF).
This week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
threatened to bring the Senate to a crawl unless it debated a new AUMF, but very few other
elected officials are prepared to challenge the president's authority to wage perpetual war at
will. Sen. John McCain went so far as to
dismiss Paul's call for an AUMF debate as a waste of his time. There is a similar lack of
interest in the House. Back in July, GOP leaders blocked Rep. Barbara Lee's attempt to force an
AUMF debate. Although Lee's proposal
won bipartisan support in the House Appropriations Committee, Speaker Paul Ryan's office
called it "an irresponsible measure" that "endangers our national security."
"... In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities. ..."
"... We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition. ..."
"... The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. ..."
"... The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China. ..."
"... After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'. ..."
"... Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones. ..."
"... The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price. ..."
"... While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders. ..."
"... The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. ..."
"... Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses. ..."
"... The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons: ..."
"... the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. ..."
"... Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees. ..."
"... Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains. ..."
"... Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities. ..."
"... American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. ..."
"... They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter. ..."
"... How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ... ..."
"... It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself ..."
Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by
extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump
regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy
agendas.
In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda
and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international
realities.
We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless
degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.
The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath
The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic
decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of
unprecedented military-political power.
The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened
the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration.
As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority.
The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government
and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations
of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered
in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness.The invasion
of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing
war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct
control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US
military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the
major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton
engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power
in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia).
The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while
dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions
against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.
The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international
order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined
as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic
sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade
agreements in Asia excluding China.
The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars.
The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise
the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building
and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he
would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if
he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered
global order.
Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation
with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy,
darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.
The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president,
but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's
global order.
Trump Under Obama's International Order
After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations
and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed
to reverse Obama's 'international order'.
Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial
to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term
commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and
other Obama-designated endless war zones.
Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas
markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities.
Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control
of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and
their programs.
Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one
proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.
A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed
' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.
The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities
as President.
General Mattis: The Militarization of America
General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including
the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.
The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing
the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.
General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama
administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.
The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic
sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire.
The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented
seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and
consular staff.
These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration
under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear
power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.
What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part
of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria
(which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton)
and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.
The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea,
which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military
megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential'
threat to the US mainland.
Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed.
Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea.
Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security
Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as
Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take
Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)
Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and
bellicose provocation against Iran.
When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and
Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements'
.
Militarization: An Evaluation
Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his
own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog'
Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and
undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator
Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him
was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of
Obama holdovers!
The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering
Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog'
Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.
While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the
attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has
enraged his own Party's leaders.
In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military
junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least
in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against
North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range
ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea.
Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq)
of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.
Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands
of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.
At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export
business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and
his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump,
may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US
military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.
The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but
it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners'
in the Trump regime.
The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger
of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.
The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the
ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially
succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations
in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over
the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats
against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade
ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.
Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate
Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized
after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.
Conclusion
The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump
Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.
Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has
tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden,
to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose
headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.
But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands
of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury
and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout
the South China Sea.
Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists
hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion.
The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any
election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly
courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving
lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's
next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for
whatever Party.
The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:
First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries
who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant
economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified
economies.
Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince
opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries
can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that
can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create
millions of refugees.
High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory
and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!
In sum:
Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal
thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing
its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed
forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.
Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their
stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual
respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating
past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.
American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to
many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or
punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish
the opposite of the stated intention.
They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China
and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering
beacon that once shone brighter.
Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent,
exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down).
Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable.
The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters
even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one.
How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes:
if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks
down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward.
Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ...
It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures
to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a
place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and
impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries
can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .
Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to
campaign for re employment . But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power
structure will do same to military .
Never met him at any of the parties I attended in the '70s and '80s, so I don't know much about
Mad Dog, but I can say that only in America can the former commander of a recruiting station grow
up to pull the strings of the President.
This article will be used by some lobbyist working for Northrop Grumman during his next
meeting with a bunch of congressmen. "I told you, those evil russkies are back at it again,
we are getting outclassed and thus we need more money. $700 billion is not enough".
The congressmen will cry about the electronic warfare gap, the new increased defense budget
will be adopted, multi-billion contracts will be singed, the congressmen will get their fat
kickbacks and everyone will be happy. Only in America
Only in America is money or technology the solution to the problems. I am sorry to to say
that ain't going to cut. It all boils down to strategy and tactics that's where the US has
its greatest deficit.
If we don't free the commoner of social brainwashing, yes, russia will win. They are
really good at that game and that game creates a society like current russia.
So the ruskies didn't do this?
Or do you expect us to lay over and let them pillage our bottom ends?
Do you want to live in russia? Is the American oligarchy just too class mobile for you and
you want the russian version with even worse social structures?
Almost every article I read distresses about how America's military is inferior to Russia,
China and even Iran. We are threatened that our aircraft carriers will soon be sunken nuclear
waste sites, our submarines are inferior, aircraft vulnerable, our tactics outdated, our
civilian leaders corrupt, military leaders incompetent, and sailors, soldiers, airman, and
Marines poorly trained and equiped thugs. Let's save a bunch of money and tell the rest of
the world we are no longer their protector. Bring our men and women home from these
hell-holes and use the money to rebuild our own infrastructure, health and education systems,
and take care of America's citizens.
Still, the Russian are still silently sucking it up after the Israel Air Forces sneaked up
under the S400 radar to bomb Syrian chemical bomb assembly plant in early September 2017.
The Russians took a very different approach to electronic warfare.
In the US, it was pursued as a method to enable air strike packages to get in and hit a
target. Hence, it focused on installations in aircraft.
In Russia, it was pursued as an element of land warfare, part air defense, and part to
enable armored forces to operate. Much of it was put in trailers on the ground, near army HQ
and signals units.
The different locations and roles produced different abilities. They got different things
because they sought different things.
Now the US wants it all. What it got, and what the Russians got. Understandable, but the
Russians are not so much "ahead" as just doing different things.
We are outclassed in EW by the Russians and our AAMs and ASMs and ATACS missiles are also
inferior.
Who in the US military will be courageous enough to take responsibility?
The Russians have been watching, studying and learning about the US military (putting all
their eggs in one basket - technology) for quite awhile. EW is simply a "Method" or strategy
to counter US tech. Blunder after blunder... within the US military to always first seek
advance technology for the solution. They can't seem to grasp that it's all about philosophy
of use and implementation. Strategy and tactics have always won on the battlefield and always
will
"... "We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been" ..."
"... while the US military is extremely good at killing people in large numbers, it is also extremely bad at winning wars ..."
"... Trump is under the illusion that spending a lot of money "buys" you a better military. This is completely false ..."
"... If spending money was the key to a competent military force, the US armed forces would have already conquered the entire planet many times over. In reality, they have not won anything meaningful since the war in the Pacific. ..."
"... just like all this predecessors, Trump conflates handing out money to the Military Industrial Complex with preparing for war. ..."
"... Frankly, this is good news: let the Americans spend themselves into bankruptcy, let them further neglect their military and let them continue to believe that this kind of magical thinking will bring them to victory. ..."
"... Sidebar: for the record, I have met and studied with plenty of excellent, well-educated, honorable, courageous and patriotic American officers and the kind of money-centered hubris I describe above is in no way directed at them, if only because they know even much better than I how bad the situation really is. There are plenty of highly-educated officers in the US armed forces who understand history and who know that money bring corruption, not victory. But they are mostly kept at ranks no higher than Colonel and you will often find them in military teaching institutions and academies. ..."
You can read the full (rush,not official) text
here or watch the video here .
Most of it is so vapid that I won't even bother posting the full thing. But there are a few
interesting moments including those:
"We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will
soon be the strongest it has ever been"
This short sentence contains the key to unlock the reason behind the fact that while the US
military is extremely good at killing people in large numbers, it is also extremely bad at
winning wars. Like most Americans, Trump is under the illusion that spending a lot of money
"buys" you a better military. This is completely false, of course. If spending money was the
key to a competent military force, the US armed forces would have already conquered the entire
planet many times over. In reality, they have not won anything meaningful since the war in the
Pacific.
Having surrounded himself with "Mad Dog" kind of "experts" on warfare, Trump is now reusing
that old mantra about how money buys you victory and this is something extremely important.
This kind of magical thinking signals to the countries most threatened by the US that the
Americans are unable to engage in a basic "lessons learned" kind of exercise, that history
teaches them nothing and that, just like all this predecessors, Trump conflates handing out
money to the Military Industrial Complex with preparing for war.
Frankly, this is good news: let the Americans spend themselves into bankruptcy, let them
further neglect their military and let them continue to believe that this kind of magical
thinking will bring them to victory.
[ Sidebar: for the record, I have met and studied with plenty of excellent,
well-educated, honorable, courageous and patriotic American officers and the kind of
money-centered hubris I describe above is in no way directed at them, if only because they know
even much better than I how bad the situation really is. There are plenty of highly-educated
officers in the US armed forces who understand history and who know that money bring
corruption, not victory. But they are mostly kept at ranks no higher than Colonel and you will
often find them in military teaching institutions and academies. Having studied with them
and become good friends with many of them, I feel sorry for them and I know that if they had
the means to stop this insanity they would]
harmful and
dangerous things in this
U.N. speech today, but it is also worth noting the things that he chose to leave out. Many observers
have already pointed out how the worsening crisis in Myanmar and the military's large-scale
ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya didn't rate a mention in the speech, but then
I suppose Trump wouldn't have anything constructive to say about the violent mass expulsion of a
Muslim population in any case. The most obvious omission in the speech was also the most predictable:
Trump said nothing about the Saudi-led war on Yemen or its role in causing the world's worst humanitarian
crisis, and when he did mention Yemen at one point it was perversely to claim credit for providing
humanitarian aid for the catastrophe that our government has helped create.
There was no attempt to justify ongoing U.S. support for the war, and there wasn't even any acknowledgment
that the Saudi-led war effort was happening. Trump's enthusiasm for the Saudi relationship means
that he isn't going to call attention to the disaster the Saudis and their allies have created with
our help, and the only other time he referred to Yemen was to use it to criticize Iran. Iran is faulted
for supposedly fueling "Yemen's civil war," which exaggerates their involvement, but there is no
mention of the Saudi-led coalition's role in escalating the conflict and wrecking the country for
over two years. It is a given that the Saudis and Iranians are judged by two very different standards
by this administration, but emphasizing the minimal Iranian role in Yemen while completely ignoring
the massive, devastating role that the Saudis and their allies (and the U.S.) have had is as bad
as it gets. As usual, those most responsible for the suffering of the people of Yemen weren't held
responsible, the war on Yemen was ignored, and Trump's Iran obsession won out.
"... Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks mentioned above was about). ..."
@WJ
Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump
been a warmonger?
I remember the debate between Pence and the hideous Tim Kaine where the Democrat vowed
that there would be No Fly Zone over Syria which would certainly have allowed the head
chopping rebels to gain a stronger foothold.
In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan
policy /escalation is also symbolic. US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only
be 15000 there anyway.
Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has
Trump been a warmonger?
You haven't been paying attention. Since the initial strike in April, the Trump
administration has deliberately attacked regime or allied forces an additional five times. (
one ,
two ,
three , four ,
five ).
Including the Tomahawks in April, that's a total of 6 deliberate attacks on the Syrian
Arab Republic or its allies (so far), which is already 6 more than Obama carried out during
his entire presidency. And it's not like this is the end of Trump's tenure, either; it's the
9th goddamn month since he's been in office. I'm sure the war hawks in Wahington are quite
pleased with his progress, as they should be.
In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His
Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic.
Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now
is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved
they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and
cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks
mentioned above was about).
After that, the Trump administration put all its eggs in the "Syrian Democratic
Forces/People's Protection Units (SDF/YPG) basket, the mainly Kurdish (with some Arab
fighters) militia that the US has been using to fight ISIS since 2015 (it's also, ironically,
a hard left socialist organization. Think Kurdish Antifa. Though I doubt Trump knows or cares
or could do anything about it even if he did). Trump has given the SDF <a title=""
https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/"
;
https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/"
;heavy weaponry with the aim of confronting Assad and limiting his territorial gains. They've
also been pressuring the rebel groups they formerly supported to join the SDF.
I have sympathy for the SDF/YPG and the Syrian Kurds, and it made sense to support them
when they were under direct assault from ISIS (though US motives were hardly altruistic even
then). But ISIS is all but beaten now, and this is a dangerous game the US is playing, which
could readily lead to a military confrontation betweeen the US and Russia and/or Iran. In
fact, just a few days ago, the SDF seized part of Deir ez-Zor after SAA forces reached the
city, and the Pentagon is now accusing Russia (which has in the past at least had
good
relations with the SDF/YPG), of deliberately bombing SDF fighters, in close proximity to
American special forces.
US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.
Only 15,000! I guess you wouldn't mind, then, if they Taliban, or the Afghan Army
for that matter, or any other country, put 15,000 troops on American soil, as a "symbolic"
gesture.
Trump has also accelerated US collaboration in the sadistic torture of Yemen by the
Saudis, past the levels under even Obama, which was already shameful.
And again, we should also keep in mind that it's only been 9 months. For his next act,
Trump might be thinking about
ending the Iran deal in October.
The bill is more than the Pentagon requested, and more than the large spending increase
the White House requested. At present both the House and Senate seem to be competing to see
who can outspend the other with their version of the bill, while rejecting all cuts proposed
by the Pentagon to keep the budget in line.
It was this massive increase that had the normally hawkish Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) as a
surprise no vote on the bill. Corker said the bill blows through budget caps, and he also
objected continuing to put money into "Overseas Contingency Operations" budget, where it can
be shifted around at will, saying that fund has been repeatedly abused.
Though President Trump has publicly objected to several aspects of the NDAA, including the
"premature" increase in spending on missile defense, there are no signs a veto is being
considered, and he is expected to sign whatever Congress ultimately puts in front of him.
"... The Trump administration's foreign policy often resembles a Mad Hatter's Tea Party or a loose cannon on a ship deck. But every now and then, a good idea emerges from the fracas. Such is the case with a reform that could sharply reduce America's piety exports. ..."
"... this is like presuming that any preacher who fails to promise to eradicate sin is a tool of the devil. Instead, it is time to recognize the carnage the US has sown abroad in the name of democracy. ..."
"... In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the US would "seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." While Bush's invocation thrilled Washington, the rest of the world paid more attention to his support for any tyrant who joined his War on Terror. ..."
"... In 2011, Obama portrayed the US bombing of Libya as a triumph of democratic values. After Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was killed, Obama speedily announced that Libyans "now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya." But violence spiraled out of control and claimed thousands of victims (including four Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012). Similarly, Obama administration officials invoked democracy to justify arming quasi-terrorist groups in Syria's civil war, worsening a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and created millions of refuges. ..."
"... Democracy promotion gives US policymakers a license to meddle almost anywhere on Earth. The National Endowment for Democracy , created in 1983, has been caught interfering in elections in France, Panama , Costa Rica , Ukraine , Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, Czechoslovakia , Poland , Haiti and many other nations. The State Department has a long list of similar pratfalls, including pouring vast amounts of money in vain efforts to beget democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan . ..."
"... Rather than abandoning all moral goals in foreign policy, Washington could instead embrace a strict policy of "honesty in democracy promotion." Under this standard, the US government would cease trying to covertly influence foreign elections, cease glorifying tinhorn dictators who rigged elections to capture power, and cease bankrolling authoritarian regimes that blight democratic reforms in the bud. But the odds of Washington policymakers abiding by those restraints is akin to the chances that all of Trump's tweets will henceforth be edifying. ..."
"... Rather than delivering political salvation, US interventions abroad more often produce "no-fault carnage" (no one in Washington is ever held liable). At a minimum, we should get our own constitutional house in order before seeking to rescue benighted foreigners. Ironically, many of the same people who equate Trump with Hitler still insist that the US government should continue its political missionary work during his reign. ..."
The Trump administration's foreign policy often resembles a Mad Hatter's Tea Party or a loose
cannon on a ship deck. But every now and then, a good idea emerges from the fracas. Such is the case
with a reform that could sharply reduce America's piety exports.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is revising the State Department mission statement to focus on
promoting "the
security, prosperity and interests of the American people globally." Washington pundits are aghast
that "democracy promotion" is no longer trumpeted as a top US foreign policy goal. Elliott Abrams,
George W. Bush's "democracy czar," complained, "We used to want a just and democratic world, and
now apparently we don't the message being sent will be a great comfort to every dictator in the
world."
But this is like presuming that any preacher who fails to promise to eradicate sin is a tool
of the devil. Instead, it is time to recognize the carnage the US has sown abroad in the name of
democracy.
The US has periodically pledged to spread democracy ever since President Woodrow Wilson announced
in 1913: "I am going to
teach the
South American republics to elect good men!" Democracy is so important that the US government
refuses to stand idly by when foreign voters go astray. Since 1946, the US has intervened -- usually
covertly -- in
more than 80 foreign elections to assist its preferred candidate or party.
In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the US would "seek and
support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the
ultimate goal of
ending tyranny
in our world." While Bush's invocation thrilled Washington, the rest of the world paid more attention
to his support for any tyrant who joined his War on Terror.
President Barack Obama was supposed to redeem the honor of US foreign policy. In 2011, Obama portrayed
the US
bombing of Libya as a triumph of democratic values. After Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was
killed, Obama speedily announced that Libyans "now have the opportunity to
determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya." But
violence spiraled out of control and claimed thousands of victims (including four
Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012). Similarly, Obama administration officials
invoked democracy to justify arming quasi-terrorist groups in Syria's civil war, worsening a
conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and created millions of refuges.
But the Obama team, like prior administrations, did not permit its democratic pretensions to impede
business as usual. After Egyptian protestors toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak, Obama pledged to assist
that nation "pursue a credible
transition to a democracy ." But the US government disapproved of that nation's first elected
leader, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi. After the Egyptian military deposed Morsi in
2013, Secretary of State John Kerry bizarrely praised Egypt's generals for "
restoring democracy ." Similarly, many Ethiopians were horrified when Obama visited their country
in 2015 and praised its regime as "
democratically elected " -- despite a sham election and its brutal suppression of journalists,
bloggers and other critics.
Democracy at its best is a wonderful form of government but many so-called democracies
nowadays are simply elective despotisms. Elections abroad are often herd counts to determine who
gets to fleece the herd. Many democracies have become kleptocracies where governing is indistinguishable
from looting.
In some nations, election victories legitimize destroying voters en masse. This is exemplified
by the Philippines, where the government has
killed 7,000
suspected drug users and dealers , including
several mayors . After President Rodrigo Duterte publicly declared that he would be "
happy to slaughter " three million drug users, Trump phoned him and, according to a leaked transcript,
said, "I just
wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job [you're doing] on the
drug problem." Similarly, Trump
congratulated Turkish president Recep Erdogan after he won a referendum that awarded him quasi-dictatorial
powers.
It is time to admit that America lacks a Midas touch for spreading democracy. Freedom House reported
that, even prior to Trump's election, more than 100 nations have seen
declines in democracy since 2005.
Rather than abandoning all moral goals in foreign policy, Washington could instead embrace
a strict policy of "honesty in democracy promotion." Under this standard, the US government would
cease trying to covertly influence foreign elections, cease glorifying tinhorn dictators who rigged
elections to capture power, and cease bankrolling authoritarian regimes that blight democratic reforms
in the bud. But the odds of Washington policymakers abiding by those restraints is akin to the chances
that all of Trump's tweets will henceforth be edifying.
Rather than delivering political salvation, US interventions abroad more often produce "no-fault
carnage" (no one in Washington is ever held liable). At a minimum, we should get our own constitutional
house in order before seeking to rescue benighted foreigners. Ironically, many of the same people
who equate Trump with Hitler still insist that the US government should continue its political missionary
work during his reign.
"... "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue State." ..."
William Blum's Cri de Coeur
A review of "America's Deadliest Export: Democracy" by William Blum (Zed Books, London/New York,
2013.)
(As it has appeared at DissidentVoice, OpEdNews, etc.):
In activist-author-publisher William Blum's new book, America's Deadliest Export: Democracy, he
tells the story of how he got his 15 minutes of fame back in 2006. Osama bin Laden had released an
audiotape, declaring:
"If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security... and if Bush decides
to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book Rogue
State."
Bin Laden then quoted from the Foreword of Blum's 2000 book, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
Only Superpower, in which he had mused:
"If I were... president, I could stop terrorist attacks [on us] in a few days. Permanently.
I would first apologize... to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured,
and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that
America's global interventions... have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no
longer the 51st state of the union but... a foreign country. I would then reduce the military
budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. ... That's what
I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."
Unfortunately, Blum never made it to the White House! But, fortunately, for those who have read
his books or follow his "Anti-Empire Reports" on the Web, he was not assassinated! And now he has
collected his reports and essays of the last dozen years or so into a 352-page volume that will not
only stand the test of time, but will help to define this disillusioned, morose, violent and unraveling
Age.
America's Deadliest... is divided into 21 chapters and an introduction--and there's something
to underline or memorize on every page! Sometimes it's just one of Blum's irrepressible quips, and
sometimes it's a matter of searing American foreign or domestic policiy that clarifies that Bushwhackian
question of yore: "Why do they hate us?"
Reading this scrupulously documented book, I lost count of the times I uttered, "unbelievable!"
concerning some nefarious act committed by the US Empire in the name of freedom, democracy and fighting
communism or terrorism. Reading Blum's book with an open mind, weighing the evidence, will bleach
out any pride in the flag we have planted in so many corpses around the world. The book is a diuretic
and emetic!
Blum's style is common sense raised to its highest level. The wonder of America's Deadliest ...
is that it covers so much of the sodden, bloody ground of America's march across our post-Second-World-War
world, yet tells the story with such deftness and grace-under-fire that the reader is enticed--not
moralized, not disquisitionally badgered--, but enticed to consider our globe from a promontory of
higher understanding.
Some of the themes Blum covers (and often eviscerates) include:
Why they hate us;
America means well;
We cannot permit a successful alternative to the capitalist model to develop anywhere in the
world;
We will use whatever means necessary--including, lies, deception, sabotage, bribery, torture
and war--to achieve the above idea.
Along the way, we get glimpses of Blum's experientially rich life. A note "About the Author" tells
us that, "He left the State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service
Officer because of his opposition to what the US was doing in Vietnam. He then became a founder and
editor of the Washington Free Press, the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital."
In his chapter on "Patriotism," Blum relates how, after a talk, he was asked: "Do you love America?"
He responded with what we may take for his credo: "I don't love any country. I'm a citizen of the
world. I love certain principles, like human rights, civil liberties, meaningful democracy, an economy
which puts people before profits."
America's Deadliest... is a book of wisdom and wit that ponders "how this world became so unbearably
cruel, corrupt, unjust, and stupid?" In a pointillistic approach, sowing aphoristic seeds for thought,
Blum enumerates instances of that cruelty, often with wry, pained commentary. "War can be seen as
America's religion," he tells us. Reflecting on Obama's octupling Bush's number of drones used to
assassinate, collaterally kill and terrorize, he affirms:
"Obama is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the American left." And, he avers,
"Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow
produce the most good." And then turns around and reminds us--lest we forget--how the mass media
have invaded our lives, with memes about patriotism, democracy, God, the "good life": "Can it
be imagined that an American president would openly implore America's young people to fight a
foreign war to defend `capitalism'?" he wonders.
"The word itself has largely gone out of fashion. The approved references now are to the market
economy, free market, free enterprise, or private enterprise."
Cynthia McKinney writes that the book is "corruscating, eye-opening, and essential." Oliver Stone
calls it a "fireball of terse information."
Like Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Cindy Sheehan and Bradley Manning, Blum is committed
to setting the historical record straight. His book is dangerous. Steadfast, immutable "truths" one
has taken for granted--often since childhood--are exposed as hollow baubles to entertain the un/mis/and
dis-informed. One such Blumism recollects Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez's account of a videotape with
a very undiplomatic Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and cowboy George Bush: "`We've got to smash
somebody's ass quickly,'" Powell said. "`We must have a brute demonstration of power.'
Then Bush spoke: `Kick ass! If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them
out and kill them! ... Stay strong! ... Kill them! ... We are going to wipe them out!'"
Blum's intellectual resources are as keen as anyone's writing today. He also adds an ample measure
of humanity to his trenchant critiques. He juxtaposes the noble rhetoric of our professed values
with the mordant facts of our deeds. The cognitive dissonance makes for a memorable, very unpretty
picture of how an immensely privileged people lost themselves, while gorging on junk food, junk politics,
junk economics, junk education, junk media. Like an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, he lambastes his own--us!--flaying
layers of hypocrisy and betrayals while seeking to reveal the core values of human dignity, empathy
and moral rectitude.
Gary Corseri has published and posted prose, poetry and dramas at hundreds of periodicals and
websites worldwide, including CommonDreams, Countercurrents, BraveNewWorld.in, OpEdNews, CounterPunch,
Outlook India, The New York Times, Dissident Voice. He has published novels, poetry collections and
a literary anthology (edited). His dramas have been presented on PBS-Atlanta and elsewhere, and he
has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library. He has taught in US public schools and
prisons, and at American and Japanese universities. Contact: [email protected].
"... German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire. The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always promoted themselves as 'democracies'. ..."
"... And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom. ..."
"... This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes in its original, Greek, language. ..."
A specter is haunting Europe and Western world - it is this time, the specter of fascism. It came
quietly, without great fanfare and parades, without raised hands and loud shouts. But it came, or
it returned, as it has always been present in this culture, one that has, for centuries, been enslaving
our entire planet.
As was in Nazi Germany, resistance to the fascist empire is again given an unsavory name: terrorism.
Partisans and patriots, resistance fighters – all of them were and have always been defined by fascist
bigots as terrorists.
By the logic of Empire, to murder millions of men, women and children in all corners of the world
abroad is considered legitimate and patriotic, but to defend one's motherland was and is a sign of
extremism.
German Nazis and Italian Fascists defined their rule as 'democratic', and so does this Empire.
The British and French empires that exterminated tens of millions of people all over the world, always
promoted themselves as 'democracies'.
And now, once again, we are witnessing a tremendous onslaught by the business-political-imperialist
Western apparatus, destabilizing or directly destroying entire nations, overthrowing governments
and bombing 'rebellious' states into the ground. All this is done in the name of democracy, in the
name of freedom.
An unelected monster, as it has done for centuries, is playing with the world, torturing some,
and plundering others, or both.
The West, in a final act of arrogance, has somehow confused itself with its own concept of God.
It has decided that it has the full right to shape the planet, to punish and to reward, to destroy
and rebuild as it wishes.
This horrible wave of terror unleashed against our planet, is justified by an increasingly meaningless
but fanatically defended dogma, symbolized by a box (made of card or wood, usually), and masses of
people sticking pieces of paper into the opening on the top of that box.
This is the altar of Western ideological fundamentalism. This is a supreme idiocy that cannot
be questioned, as it guarantees the status quo for ruling elites and business interests, an absurdity
that justifies all crimes, all lies and all madness.
This sacrificial altar is called, Democracy, in direct mockery to what the term symbolizes
in its original, Greek, language.
***
In our latest book, "On Western Terrorism – from Hiroshima to Drone Warfare", Noam Chomsky commented
on the 'democratic' process in the Western world:
"The goal of elections now is to undermine democracy. They are run by the public relations industry
and they're certainly not trying to create informed voters who'll make rational choices. They are
trying to delude people into making irrational choices. The same techniques that are used to undermine
markets are used to undermine democracy. It's one of the major industries in the country and its
basic workings are invisible."
But what is it that really signifies this 'sacred' word, this almost religious term, and this
pinnacle of Western demagogy? We hear it everywhere. We are ready to sacrifice millions of lives
(not ours of course, at least not yet, but definitely lives of the others) in the name of it.
Democracy!
All those grand slogans and propaganda! Last year I visited Pyongyang, but I have to testify that
North Koreans are not as good at slogans as the Western propagandists are.
"In the name of freedom and democracy!" Hundreds of millions tons of bombs fell from the sky on
the Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese countryside bodies were burned by napalm, mutilated by spectacular
explosions.
"Defending democracy!" Children were raped in front of their parents in Central America, men and
women machine-gunned down by death squads that had been trained in military bases in the United States
of America.
"Civilizing the world and spreading democracy!" That has always been a European slogan, their
'stuff to do', and a way of showing their great civilization to others. Amputating hands of Congolese
people, murdering around ten million of them, and many more in Namibia, East Africa, West Africa
and Algiers; gassing people of the Middle East ( "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas
against uncivilised tribes", to borrow from the colorful lexicon of (Sir) Winston Churchill).
So what is it really? Who is it, that strange lady with an axe in her hand and with a covered
face – the lady whose name is Democracy?
***
It is all very simple, actually. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule
of the people". Then and now, it was supposed to be in direct contrast to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia),
that means "rule of an elite".
'Rule of the people' Let us just visit a few examples of the 'rule of the people'.
People spoke, they ruled, they voted 'democratically' in Chile, bringing in the mild and socialist
government of 'Popular Unity' of Salvador Allende.
Sure, the Chilean education system was so brilliant, its political and social system so wonderful,
that it inspired not only many countries in Latin America, but also those in far away Mediterranean
Europe.
That could not be tolerated, because, as we all know, it is only white Europe and North America
that can be allowed to supply the world with the blueprint for any society, anywhere on this planet.
It was decided that "Chile has to scream", that its economy had to be ruined and the "Popular Unity"
government kicked out of power.
Henry Kissinger, belonging, obviously, to a much higher race and country of a much higher grade,
made a straightforward and in a way very 'honest' statement, clearly defining the North American
stand towards global democracy: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist
due to the irresponsibility of its people."
And so Chile was ravaged. Thousands of people were murdered and 'our son-of-a-bitch' was brought
to power. General Pinochet was not elected: he bombed the Presidential palace in Santiago, he savagely
tortured the men and women who were elected by the Chilean people, and he "disappeared" thousands.
But that was fine, because democracy, as it is seen from Washington, London or Paris, is nothing
more and nothing less than what the white man needs in order to control this planet, unopposed and
preferably never criticized.
Of course Chile was not the only place where 'democracy' was 'redefined'. And it was not the most
brutal scenario either, although it was brutal enough. But it was a very symbolic 'case', because
here, there could be absolutely no dispute: an extremely well educated, middle class country, voted
in transparent elections, just to have its government murdered, tortured and exiled, simply because
it was too democratic and too involved in improving the lives of its people.
There were countless instances of open spite coming from the North, towards the 'rule of the people'
in Latin America. For centuries, there have been limitless examples. Every country 'south of the
border' in the Western Hemisphere, became a victim.
After all, the self-imposed Monroe Doctrine gave North Americans 'unquestionable rights' to intervene
and 'correct' any 'irresponsible' democratic moves made by the lower races inhabiting Central and
South America as well as the Caribbean Islands.
There were many different scenarios of real ingenuity, in how to torture countries that embarked
on building decent homes for their people, although soon there was evidence of repetitiveness and
predictability.
The US has been either sponsoring extremely brutal coups (like the one in Guatemala in 1954),
or simply occupying the countries in order to overthrow their democratically elected governments.
Justifications for such interventions have varied: it was done in order to 'restore order', to 'restore
freedom and democracy', or to prevent the emergence of 'another Cuba'.
From the Dominican Republic in 1965 to Grenada in 1983, countries were 'saved from themselves'
through the introduction (by orders from mainly the Protestant North American elites with clearly
pathological superiority complexes) of death squads that administered torture, rape and extrajudicial
executions. People were killed because their democratic decisions were seen as 'irresponsible' and
therefore unacceptable.
While there has been open racism in every aspect of how the Empire controlled its colonies, 'political
correctness' was skillfully introduced, effectively reducing to a bare minimum any serious critiques
of the societies that were forced into submission.
In Indonesia, between 1 and 3 million people were murdered in the years1965/66, in a US -sponsored
coup, because there too, was a 'great danger' that the people would rule and decide to vote 'irresponsibly',
bringing the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), at that time the third most numerous Communist Party
anywhere in the world, to power.
The democratically elected President of Congo, Patrice Lumumba, was murdered in 1961, by the joint
efforts of the United States and Europe, simply because he was determined to use the vast natural
resources of his country to feed his own people; and because he dared to criticize Western colonialism
and imperialism openly and passionately.
East Timor lost a third of its population simply because its people, after gaining independence
from Portugal, dared to vote the left-leaning FRETILIN into power. "We are not going to tolerate
another Cuba next to our shores", protested the Indonesian fascist dictator Suharto, and the US and
Australia strongly agreed. The torture, and extermination of East Timorese people by the Indonesian
military, was considered irrelevant and not even worth reporting in the mass media.
The people of Iran could of course not be trusted with 'democracy'. Iran is one of the oldest
and greatest cultures on earth, but its people wanted to use the revenues from its oil to improve
their lives, not to feed foreign multi-nationals. That has always been considered a crime by Western
powers – a crime punishable by death.
The people of Iran decided to rule; they voted, they said that they want to have all their oil
industry nationalized. Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from
1951 to 1953, was ready to implement what his people demanded. But his government was overthrown
in a coup d'état, orchestrated by the British MI6 and North American CIA, and what followed was the
murderous dictatorship of the deranged Western puppet – Reza Pahlavi. As in Latin America and Indonesia,
instead of schools, hospitals and housing projects, people got death squads, torture chambers and
fear. Is that what they wanted? Is that what they voted for?
There were literally dozens of countries, all over the world, which had to be 'saved', by the
West, from their own 'irresponsible citizens and voters'. Brazil recently 'celebrated' the 50th anniversary
of the US-backed military coup d'état, which began a horrendous 20 year long military dictatorship.
The US supported two coups in Iraq, in 1963 and 1968 that brought Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party
to power. The list is endless. These are only some random examples.
On closer examination, the West has overthrown, or made attempts to overthrow, almost any democratically
elected governments, on all continents attempting to serve their own people, by providing them with
decent standards of living and social services. That is quite an achievement, and some stamina!
Could it be then that the West only respects 'Democracy' when 'people are forced to rule' against
their own interests? And when they are 'defending' what they are ordered to defend by local elites
that are subservient to North American and European interests? and also when they are defending
the interests of foreign multi-national companies and Western governments that are dependent on those
companies?
***
Can anything be done? If a country is too weak to defend itself by military means, against some
mighty Western aggressor, could it approach any international democratic institutions, hoping for
protection?
Unthinkable!
A good example is Nicaragua, which had been literally terrorized by the United States, for no
other reason than for being socialist. Its government went to court.
The case was called: The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America.
It was a 1986 case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor
of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua.
The judgment was long, consisting of 291 points. Among them that the United States had been involved
in the "unlawful use of force." The alleged violations included attacks on Nicaraguan facilities
and naval vessels, the mining of Nicaraguan ports, the invasion of Nicaraguan air space, and the
training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying of forces (the "Contras") and seeking to overthrow
Nicaragua's Sandinista government.
Judgment was passed, and so were UN votes and resolutions. The UN resolution from 1986 called
for the full and immediate compliance with the Judgment. Only Thailand, France and the UK abstained.
The US showed total spite towards the court, and it vetoed all UN resolutions.
It continued its terror campaign against Nicaragua. In the end, the ruined and exhausted country
voted in 1990. It was soon clear that it was not voting for or against Sandinista government, but
whether to endure more violence from the North, or to simply accept depressing defeat. The Sandinista
government lost. It lost because the voters had a North American gun pointing at their heads.
This is how 'democracy' works.
I covered the Nicaraguan elections of 1996 and I was told by voters, by a great majority of them,
that they were going to vote for the right-wing candidate (Aleman), only because the US was threatening
to unleash another wave of terror in case the Sandinista government came back to power, democratically.
The Sandinistas are now back. But only because most of Latin America has changed, and there is
unity and determination to fight, if necessary.
***
While the Europeans are clearly benefiting from neo-colonialism and the plunder that goes on all
over the world, it would be ridiculous to claim that they themselves are 'enjoying the fruits of
democracy'.
In a dazzling novel "Seeing", written by Jose Saramago, a laureate for the Nobel Prize for literature,
some 83% of voters in an unidentified country (most likely Saramago's native Portugal), decide to
cast blank ballots, expressing clear spite towards the Western representative election system.
This state, which prided itself as a 'democratic one', responded by unleashing an orgy of terror
against its own citizens. It soon became obvious that people are allowed to make democratic choices
only when the result serves the interests of the regime.
Ursula K Le Guin, reviewing the novel in the pages of The Guardian, on 15 April 2006, admitted:
Turning in a blank ballot is a signal unfamiliar to most Britons and Americans, who aren't yet
used to living under a government that has made voting meaningless. In a functioning democracy, one
can consider not voting a lazy protest liable to play into the hands of the party in power (as when
low Labour turn-out allowed Margaret Thatcher's re-elections, and Democratic apathy secured both
elections of George W Bush). It comes hard to me to admit that a vote is not in itself an act of
power, and I was at first blind to the point Saramago's non-voting voters are making.
She should not have been. Even in Europe itself, terror had been unleashed, on many occasions,
against the people who decided to vote 'incorrectly'.
Perhaps the most brutal instance was in the post WWII period, when the Communist Parties were
clearly heading for spectacular victories in France, Italy and West Germany. Such 'irresponsible
behavior' had to be, of course, stopped. Both US and UK intelligence forces made a tremendous effort
to 'save democracy' in Europe, employing Nazis to break, intimidate, even murder members of progressive
movements and parties.
These Nazi cadres were later allowed, even encouraged, to leave Europe for South America, some
carrying huge booty from the victims who vanished in concentration camps. This booty included gold
teeth.
Later on, in the 1990's, I spoke to some of them, and also to their children, in Asuncion, the
capital of Paraguay. They were proud of their deeds, unrepentant, and as Nazi as ever.
Many of those European Nazis later actively participated in Operation Condor, so enthusiastically
supported by the Paraguayan fascist and pro-Western dictator, Alfredo Strössner. Mr Strössner was
a dear friend and asylum-giver to many WWII war criminals, including people like Dr. Josef Mengele,
the Nazi doctor known as the "Angel of Death", who performed genetic experiments on children during
the WWII.
So, after destroying that 'irresponsible democratic process' in Europe (the post-war Western Empire),
many European Nazis that were now loyally serving their new master, were asked to continue with what
they knew how to do best. Therefore they helped to assassinate some 60,000 left-wing South American
men, women and their children, who were guilty of building egalitarian and just societies in their
home countries. Many of these Nazis took part, directly, in Operacion Condor, under the direct supervision
of the United States and Europe.
As Naomi Klein writes in her book, Shock Doctrine:
"Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor, Portuguese: Operação Condor) was a campaign of political
repression and terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially
implemented in 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America. The program
was intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas, and to suppress active or potential
opposition movements against the participating governments."
In Chile, German Nazis rolled up their sleeves and went to work directly: by interrogating, liquidating
and savagely torturing members of the democratically elected government and its supporters. They
also performed countless medical experiments on people, at the so-called Colonia Dirnidad, during
the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, whose rule was manufactured and sustained by Dr. Kissinger
and his clique.
But back to Europe: in Greece, after WWII, both the UK and US got heavily involved in the civil
war between the Communists and the extreme right-wing forces.
In 1967, just one month before the elections in which the Greek left-wing was expected to win
democratically (the Indonesian scenario of 1965), the US and its 'Greek colonels' staged a coup,
which marked the beginning of a 7 year savage dictatorship.
What happened in Yugoslavia, some 30 years later is, of course clear. A successful Communist country
could not be allowed to survive, and definitely not in Europe. As bombs fell on Belgrade, many of
those inquisitive and critically thinking people that had any illusions left about the Western regime
and its 'democratic principles', lost them rapidly.
But by then, the majority of Europe already consisted of indoctrinated masses, some of the worst
informed and most monolithic (in their thinking) on earth.
Europe and its voters It is that constantly complaining multitude, which wants more and more
money, and delivers the same and extremely predictable electoral results every four, five or six
years. It lives and votes mechanically. It has totally lost its ability to imagine a different world,
to fight for humanist principles, and even to dream.
It is turning into an extremely scary place, a museum at best, and a cemetery of human vision
at the worst.
***
As Noam Chomsky pointed out:
Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the political
arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge propaganda campaign
is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial extravaganzas and to think, "That's
politics." But it isn't. It's only a small part of politics.
The population has been carefully excluded from political activity, and not by accident. An enormous
amount of work has gone into that disenfranchisement. During the 1960s the outburst of popular participation
in democracy terrified the forces of convention, which mounted a fierce counter-campaign. Manifestations
show up today on the left as well as the right in the effort to drive democracy back into the hole
where it belongs.
Arundhati Roy, commented in her "Is there life after democracy?"
The question here, really, is what have we done to democracy? What have we turned it into? What
happens once democracy has been used up? When it has been hollowed out and emptied of meaning? What
happens when each of its institutions has metastasized into something dangerous? What happens now
that democracy and the Free Market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted
imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximizing profit? Is it possible to
reverse this process? Can something that has mutated go back to being what it used to be?
***
After all that brutality, and spite for people all over the world, the West is now teaching the
planet about democracy. It is lecturing Asians and Africans, people from Middle East and Sub-Continent,
on how to make their countries more 'democratic'. It is actually hard to believe, it should be one
of the most hilarious things on earth, but it is happening, and everyone is silent about it.
Those who are listening without bursting into laughter are actually well paid.
There are seminars; even foreign aid projects related to 'good governance', sponsored by the European
Union, and the United States. The EU is actually much more active in this field. Like the Italian
mafia, it sends covert but unmistakable messages to the world: "You do as we say, or we break your
legs But if you obey, come to us and we will teach you how to be a good aide to Cosa Nostra! And
we will give you some pasta and wine while you are learning."
Because there is plenty of money, so called 'funding' members of the elite, the academia, media
and non-government organizations, from countries that have been plundered by the West – countries
like Indonesia, Philippines, DR Congo, Honduras, or Colombia –send armies of people to get voluntarily
indoctrinated, (sorry, to be 'enlightened') to learn about democracy from the greatest assassins
of genuine 'people's power'; from the West.
Violating democracy is an enormous business. To hush it up is part of that business. To learn
how to be idle and not to intervene against the external forces destroying democracy in your own
country, while pretending to be 'engaged and active', is actually the best business, much better
than building bridges or educating children (from a mercantilist point of view).
Once, at the University of Indonesia where I was invited to speak, a student asked me 'what is
the way forward', to make his country more democratic? I replied, looking at several members of the
professorial staff:
"Demand that your teachers stop going to Europe on fully funded trips. Demand that they stop being
trained in how to brainwash you. Do not go there yourself, to study. Go there to see, to understand
and to learn, but not to study Europe had robbed you of everything. They are still looting your
country. What do you think you will learn there? Do you really think they will teach you how to save
your nation?"
Students began laughing. The professors were fuming. I was never invited back. I am sure that
the professors knew exactly what I was talking about. The students did not. They were thinking that
I made a very good joke. But I was not trying to be funny.
***
As I write these words, the Thai military junta has taken over the country. The West is silent:
the Thai military is an extremely close ally. Democracy at work
And as I write these words, the fascist government in Kiev is chasing, kidnapping and "disappearing"
people in the east and south of Ukraine. By some insane twist of logic, the Western corporate media
is managing to blame Russia. And only a few people are rolling around on the floor, laughing.
As I write these words, a big part of Africa is in flames, totally destroyed by the US, UK, France
and other colonial powers.
Client states like the Philippines are now literally being paid to get antagonistic with China.
Japanese neo-fascist adventurism fully supported by the Unites States can easily trigger WWIII.
So can Western greed and fascist practices in Ukraine.
Democracy! People's power!
If the West had sat on its ass, where it belongs, in Europe and in North America, after WWII,
the world would have hardly any problems now. People like Lumumba, Allende, Sukarno, Mosaddeq, would
have led their nations and continents. They would have communicated with their own people, interacted
with them. They would have built their own styles of 'democracy'.
But all that came from the Bandung Conference of 1955, from the ideals of the Non-Aligned movement,
was ruined and bathed in blood. The true hopes of the people of the world cut to pieces, urinated
on, and then thrown into gutter.
But no more time should be wasted by just analyzing, and by crying over spilt milk. Time to move
on!
The world has been tortured by Europe and the United States, for decades and centuries. It has
been tortured in the name of democracy but it has all been one great lie. The world has been tortured
simply because of greed, and because of racism. Just look back at history. Europe and the United
States have only stopped calling people "niggers", but they do not have any more respect for them
than before. And they are willing, same as before, to sacrifice millions of human lives.
Let us stop worshiping their box, and those meaningless pieces of paper that they want us to stick
in there. There is no power of people in this. Look at the United States itself – where is our democracy?
It is a one-party regime fully controlled by market fundamentalists. Look at our press, and propaganda
Rule of the people by the people, true democracy, can be achieved. We the people had been derailed,
intellectually, so we have not been thinking how, for so many decades.
Now we, many of us, know what is wrong, but we are still not sure what is right.
Let us think and let us search, let us experiment. And also, let us reject their fascism first.
Let them stick their papers wherever they want! Let them pretend that they are not slaves to some
vendors and swindlers. Let them do whatever they want – there, where they belong.
Democracy is more than a box. It is more than a multitude of political parties. It is when people
can truly choose, decide and build a society that they dream about. Democracy is the lack of fear
of having napalm and bombs murdering our dreams. Democracy is when people speak and from those words
grow their own nation. Democracy is when millions of hands join together and from that brilliant
union, new trains begin to run, new schools begin to teach, and new hospitals begin to heal. All
this by the people, for the people! All this created by proud and free humans as gift to all – to
their nation.
Yes, let the slave masters stick their pieces of paper into a box, or somewhere else. They can
call it democracy. Let us call democracy something else – rule of the people, a great exchange of
ideas, of hopes and dreams. Let our taking control over our lives and over our nations be called
'democracy'!
Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered
wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His discussion with Noam Chomsky
On Western Terrorism
is now going to print. His critically acclaimed political novel
Point
of No Return is now re-edited and available.
Oceania
is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto
Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called "Indonesia
– The Archipelago of Fear". He has just completed the feature documentary, "Rwanda
Gambit" about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin
America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached
through his website or his
Twitter.
"... This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks. ..."
"... Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support for the regime. ..."
"... The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners. ..."
Cold wars freeze despotism in place, and thaws in foreign relations melt it away
The recent Iran nuclear deal represents a thaw in the American cold war against that country.
It is a welcome sequel to the Obama administration's partial normalization with Cuba announced late
last year.
Hardliners denounce these policies as "going soft" on theocracy and communism. Yet, it is such
critics' own hardline, hawkish policies that have done the most to ossify and strengthen such regimes.
That is because war, including cold war, is the health of the state. Antagonistic imperial policies - economic
warfare, saber-rattling, clandestine interventions, and full-blown attacks - make the citizens of
targeted "rogue states" feel under siege.
This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around
their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed
necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country,
don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks.
Rogue state governments eagerly amplify and exploit this siege effect through propaganda, taking
on the mantle of foremost defender of the nation against the "Yankee Imperialist" or "Great Satan."
Amid the atmosphere of crisis, public resistance against domestic oppression by the now indispensable
"guardian class" goes by the board. "Quit your complaining. Don't you know there's a cold war on?
Don't you know we're under siege?"
Moreover, cold wars make it easy for rogue state governments to shift the blame for domestic troubles
away from their own misrule, and onto the foreign bogeyman/scapegoat ("bogeygoat?") instead. This
is especially easy for being to some extent correct, especially with regard to economic blockades
and other crippling sanctions, like those Washington has imposed on Cuba, Iran, etc.
Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially
terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure
them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support
for the regime.
The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue
state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be
no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian
hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists
(as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners.
The last thing hardliners want is the loss of their cherished bogeygoat. Once an emergency foreign
threat recedes, and the fog of war hysteria lifts, people are then more capable of clearly seeing
their "guardians" as the domestic threat that they are, and more likely to feel that they can afford
to address that threat without exposing themselves to foreign danger. This tends to impel governments
to become less oppressive, and may even lead to their loss of power.
Thus after Nixon normalized with communist China and belatedly ended the war on communist Vietnam,
both of those countries greatly liberalized and became more prosperous. Even Soviet reforms and the
ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union only arose following American detente.
Simultaneously, as the American cold wars against communist Cuba and communist North Korea continued
without stint for decades, providing the Castros and Kims the ultimate bogeygoat to feature in their
propaganda, the impoverishing authoritarian grip of those regimes on their besieged people only strengthened.
Similarly, ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the puppet dictator that the CIA had
installed over Iran in a 1953 coup, the Ayatollahs have been able to exploit ongoing hostility from
the American "Great Satan" to retain and consolidate their repressive theocratic power.
All this is an object lesson for US relations with Putin's Russia, Chavista Venezuela, and beyond.
Disastrously, it is being unheeded.
Even while thawing relations with Iran, the Obama administration has triggered a new cold war
with Russia over Ukraine. This has only made Russian President Vladimir Putin more domestically popular
than ever.
And even while normalizing relations with Cuba, Obama recently declared Venezuela a national security
threat, imposing new sanctions. As journalist Alexandra Ulmer argued, these sanctions "may be godsend
for struggling Venezuelan leader," President Nicolas Maduro. As Ulmer wrote in Reuters:
"Suddenly, the unpopular leader has an excuse to crank up the revolutionary rhetoric and try to
fire up supporters, copying a tactic used skillfully for more than a decade by his mentor and predecessor,
the late socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez.
A new fight with the enemy to the north may also help unite disparate ruling Socialist Party factions
and distract Venezuelans from relentless and depressing talk about their day-to-day economic problems."
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three
co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used
to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest,
and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted
by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation,
in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old
effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the
CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert
program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small
groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program
...
When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence
and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the
exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an
equally larger scale.
*Note:
The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed
Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says
that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA
documents show that it was over $1 billion
per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started
in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.
Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM |
Permalink
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries
could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy
of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important
than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much
on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2
million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries
which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually
convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire
west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.
Is treason in the USA
a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."
A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training
them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping
is just too much of an attraction
"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"
The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped
in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians
are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution.
Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to
join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.
ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and
to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate
that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that
work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families
and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.
On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging
to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters
fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the
likes of McCain.
"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable
as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's
choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change
one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what
were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan
consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness
to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the
perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."
My own addition to the Brennan record:
Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for
9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington,
they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi
hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director
Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship
between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured
through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan
and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert.
In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.
... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the
extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial
support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen
current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most
spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.
From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.
...
The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was
known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that
ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings
over years of abuses.
...
Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the
administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut
off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through
a Cayman Islands bank account.
When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom
kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence
E. Walsh, the independent counsel.
In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences
and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."
one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh
is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats
recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The
Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy
Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were
either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change
purposes (as in Libya and Syria):
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.
Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal
battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only
military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S.
seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.
This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting
to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes
assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and
UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed,
jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.
The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis
(c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines,
air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon
Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:
Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton
also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe,
Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone
damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).
Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq,
claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have
their own separate charge sheet.
Send the lot to Scheveningen
Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy
to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks
so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see:
'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year
sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us
who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof
of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially
the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic
law as well. Thanks b!
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward,
not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world,
but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks?
Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK
since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired
mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit.
Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread
the joy.
Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes
that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing
plan.
As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis
that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal
activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would
be brought to light.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes
for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's
probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.
That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head
into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.
At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some
of his damage.
Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly
or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth
suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing.
Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to
see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's
doofus back).
Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.
I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll
bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling
the apocalypse.
Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is
coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of
the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what
he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc.
I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling.
I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world
USA?
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria
has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies
would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.
John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington
for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would,"
McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition
in Syria.
"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided
them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send
them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare
as I understand it," McCain said.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland
to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador
to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief
architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of
the Syrian government.
Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates
and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist
extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written
off as an Assad apologist or worse.
Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting
moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington
was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates
he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange
with then-ex Ambassador Ford:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar'
of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex.
Meyssan, as an ex.:
In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that
the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory
importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade,
a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various
distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.
Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where
'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only
bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly
difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.
The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the
BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance
spun by the media, which works.
"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron
and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."
I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states)
- freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are
sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to
go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!
My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and
wealth, what religion does to a human?
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never...
Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice,
for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.
You can include ALL the POTUS's
and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."
6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless
people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will
create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly
to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger
the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect
them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way,
is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.
The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources
for the disorder on the internet.
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation)
that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird.
It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and
manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives.
/s
" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed
to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest
of the animal kingdom, ...."
Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living
to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly
so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere.
Thanks sharing you thought.
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional.
The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime
change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians
hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo
antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever
turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the
free world ,debunked.
Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute
and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the
next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.
Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they
had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar
ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their
regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the
Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion
of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come
out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading
and hacking the free world,debunked.
Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for
Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked
him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.
Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived
and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.
Strawman, that many here, including Mark and PO, have tried using against me. First, I have
criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, like the 2003 Iraq war, intervention in Libya, and the war
in Afghanistan. This debunks the first part of your post.
As for the second: anyone who blames the U.S. for something it is not responsible for, in
an attempt to distract from the country's economic issues for example, is an anti-American.
Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people
with stereotypes.
The above paragraph can be applied to any country in the world and is standard fare for
defining phobia against a country. You and your ilk are quick to whine about "Russophobia",
but when similar tactics are used against the U.S., you start calling anyone who calls them
out an "imperialist".
Such extreme over-simplifications do nothing except twist my words and make it easier for
you to avoid critically self-assessing your views on U.S. foreign policy. An easy way to
avoid debate.
"Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people
with stereotypes."
That's too simplistic. The USA simultaneously represents a country and a global neoliberal
empire led from Washington. The latter gave us all those wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,
Yemen and Syria (KSA is a part of the empire).
You may want prosperity for the USA proper, and the collapse of this neoliberal empire at
the same time. This is essentially Bannon's position and the position of other "economic
nationalists" in the USA, who are now tarred and feathered as "Putin friends" (Putin's
position is also somewhat closer to economic nationalism then to neoliberalism, although in
certain areas he sits between two chairs).
The USA is a great country which among other things gave the world Internet, as we know
it. As well as modern CPUs and computers ( although here British scientists and Germans made
important contributions too, often as staff of foreign subsidiaries of the US companies such
as Intel, and IBM) . Due to which such forums are possible.
Neoliberalism and US governed global neoliberal empire will most probably shrink or even
collapse after the end of cheap oil and due to the rise of nationalist movements in almost
all EU countries and elsewhere, which partially reverses the trend toward neoliberal
globalization that existed before. That's uneven process. In the USA neoliberalism
demonstrated amazing staying power after financial crisis of 2008, which buried neoliberal
ideology.
Recently in some countries (not without some help from the USA) neoliberalism staged
revenge (Argentina, Brazil), but the general trend now does not favor neoliberal
globalization and, by extension, kicking the can down the road via color revolutions and
such.
The typical forecast for end of cheap oil is a decade or two. KSA is the canary in the
mine here. It should collapse first.
The USA as a country probably will be OK because it is rich in hydrocarbons, but the
neoliberal empire will collapse as the USA probably it will not be able or willing to serve
as armed enforcer of multinationals around the globe any longer. The set of ideas known as
neoliberalism are already on life support. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199283273 A Brief
History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. Also see http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtml
Neoliberals who control the US state after Reagan coup (or even starting with Carter)
still push down the throats of Americans those dead ideas due to power of propaganda machine,
but they are less and less effective. Trump election means that allergic reaction to
neoliberal propaganda already is a factor in the US political life. Hillary positioned
herself as quintessential globalist and warmonger for the USA led neoliberal empire and lost.
Trump proved to be no better then the king of "bait and switch" Barak Obama and shed all his
election promises with ease. But the fact remains. .
For the same reason we also need to distinguish between neocons, who currently determine
the US foreign policy (and dominate the State Department) and the rank-and-file Americans who
suffer from this imperial overreach, from outsourcing, with some of them returning home dead
or maimed. There nothing bad in denigrating neocons.
I would view the current round of hostilities between Russia and the USA through the prism
of the fight for the preservation of the US neoliberal empire. They need an external enemy to
squash mounting resistance to neoliberalism with the USA. And Ukraine gambit was designed
explicitly for that. If they can take out Russia (by installing Yeltsin-style regime, which
is the goal) the life of empire might be prolonged (they tried and failed in 2012). The
second round of looting also might help with paying external debt. The shot in the arm which
the USA got from the collapse of the USSR led to [fake] prosperity in 1994-2000.
I'll ask an even more politically-incorrect question: To what extent is the United States
Navy still
our
navy? What does the U.S. Navy's presence in the South China Sea, or
near Singapore, or anywhere west of Hawaii, have to do with the security of the people of the
United States? If the combined naval forces of China and Japan and the other nations of the
region can't protect merchantmen from pirates, well, re-route ships away and out of
range.
Almost nothing the United States military does today provides any meaningful defense for
the American nation. The fact that we have a Department of "Defense" and a separate
Department of Homeland Security really ought to be a clue to the
genuine
mission of
the U.S. military: maintenance of the AngloZionist Empire.
I know that John has a son in the U.S. Army. I hope that he leaves when his enlistment is
up. If he still aspires to a military career I suggest the French Foreign Legion or some
country that accepts foreign volunteers. The Army training he got will improve his situation
and he might be working for an organization that actually defends its own people, or at least
its own organization (in the case of the Legion). I applied to West Point years
ago–today I would counsel a son to take all steps necessary to avoid conscription. It's
no longer
our
military.
Jim Christian sometimes coments on Navy issues here at Unz. I wonder what his take on the
situation is?
I have a job connected with military recruiting. Most Americans wouldn't believe who's
joining the U.S. military these days. It's largely a jobs program for third-world immigrants
or the white underclass. It's common to see 18/19-year old recent immigrants from Africa who
were living in villages without street names just 3 years prior. Or young Latinas with a
child (who's being taken care of by her parents) who are working security or MP with goal of
becoming a civilian cop.
But hey, the young people who join will be fairly well-compensated (compared to the
private-employer world) and will receive life-long benefits, including preference in all
government employment hiring.
@Diversity Heretic
I'll ask an even more politically-incorrect question: To what extent
is the United States Navy still
our
navy? What does the U.S. Navy's presence in the
South China Sea, or near Singapore, or anywhere west of Hawaii, have to do with the security
of the people of the United States? If the combined naval forces of China and Japan and the
other nations of the region can't protect merchantmen from pirates, well, re-route ships away
and out of range.
Almost nothing the United States military does today provides any meaningful defense for
the American nation. The fact that we have a Department of "Defense" and a separate
Department of Homeland Security really ought to be a clue to the
genuine
mission of
the U.S. military: maintenance of the AngloZionist Empire.
I know that John has a son in the U.S. Army. I hope that he leaves when his enlistment is
up. If he still aspires to a military career I suggest the French Foreign Legion or some
country that accepts foreign volunteers. The Army training he got will improve his situation
and he might be working for an organization that actually defends its own people, or at least
its own organization (in the case of the Legion). I applied to West Point years ago--today I
would counsel a son to take all steps necessary to avoid conscription. It's no longer
our
military.
Jim Christian sometimes coments on Navy issues here at Unz. I wonder what his take on the
situation is?
To what extent is the United States Navy still our navy?
That's a good question, and it could be asked of the whole military. Historically, the
military defends the nation in its geographic redoubt. Our military's mission, much less
Europe's, seems to be the defense of a global ideological order. Hence, I wonder if the
partial intent is to keep the nation's elite fighters tied up overseas rather than garrisoned
on home soil lest they get any ideas about defense of the Nation as opposed to the NWO.
Apparently there was serious talk within the British military when the Labour government
decided to experiment with nationalization after World War II.
On the other hand, I think pensions, medical care and housing are keeping the US military
quiescent, and this gets back to Derb's point. A lot of people join the military out of
economic necessity; they are there for the paycheck, and when the mission becomes Diversity
they are happy to follow orders. Soldiers with poor prospects in the private sector will do
awful things to their own countrymen to keep the benefits flowing. Venezuela frankly needs a
military coup, but they're apparently well-fed and their generals don't know economics.
Lived it, have the T-shirt. Retired from the Navy 11 years ago. You put young men and
women of breeding age on a vessel and you have fraternization and pregnancies. Duh. Walking
by the mess (dining) decks on an aircraft carrier was sometimes like walking by a high school
cafeteria with the guys checking out the chicks and vice versa. Pregnancies of course rose
mysteriously just before deployment. I lost the same female twice to pregnancy, both times
before a six month deployment and finally, remember you have the same male/female dynamic at
watch stations in the middle of the night
I guess you can an add a much larger homosexual element to the issue since I retired as
well. Who knows what's going on in the fan rooms of some of those ships these days.
@El Dato
In truth, engagements are supposed to be over fast.
If you have a few missiles coming at you from the horizon and you miss less than 100% of
them with your Phalanx or whatever else you have (a functional
Aster
system? An non-experimental
Laser gun?), it's Game Over Man, whether you are in a thin-shelled floating server room or a
thick-shelled floating server room.
Shell, bomb, and kamikaze damage just ain't gonna happen anymore.
OUCH TIME
Missiles are just another way of delivering warheads that used to be called "shells". Navy
ships used to be armored to take shell fire and survive. Today, they are thin-skinned
electronic "gaming" machines that cannot survive a "pin prick".
The Navy was shocked in the first Gulf War when an Iraqi Exocet missile (one hit) totally
disabled the missile frigate, USS Stark. However, nothing changed with respect to
thin-skinned naval ship design.
What this means is that swarming Iranian speed boats probably
do
have the
capability of disabling and/or destroying US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf in time of war.
Missiles are cheap. Thin-skinned $1.5 billion electronic missile frigates are not.
The Russians and Chinese are also following this strategy cheap missiles to disable and/or
destroy US Navy capital (including aircraft carriers) and support ships with hypersonic
missiles that cannot be defended against.
Physical damage aside, there is also a growing capability on the part of the Russians and
Chinese to turn off a ship's electronics via electronic warfare. In 2014, a Sukhoi Su-24
overflying the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea was able to electronically disable the ship
using the "Khibiny" electronic warfare suite.
The point is that thin-skinned navy ships packed with electronics are no match for today's
offensive missiles or electronic warfare suites. As a cost comparison, it is ridiculous to
procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or destroyed by relatively
low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.
@TheJester
Missiles are just another way of delivering warheads that used to be called
"shells". Navy ships used to be armored to take shell fire and survive. Today, they are
thin-skinned electronic "gaming" machines that cannot survive a "pin prick".
The Navy was shocked in the first Gulf War when an Iraqi Exocet missile (one hit) totally
disabled the missile frigate, USS Stark. However, nothing changed with respect to
thin-skinned naval ship design.
What this means is that swarming Iranian speed boats probably
do
have the
capability of disabling and/or destroying US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf in time of war.
Missiles are cheap. Thin-skinned $1.5 billion electronic missile frigates are not.
The Russians and Chinese are also following this strategy ... cheap missiles to disable
and/or destroy US Navy capital (including aircraft carriers) and support ships with
hypersonic missiles that cannot be defended against.
Physical damage aside, there is also a growing capability on the part of the Russians and
Chinese to turn off a ship's electronics via electronic warfare. In 2014, a Sukhoi Su-24
overflying the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea was able to electronically disable the ship
using the "Khibiny" electronic warfare suite.
The point is that thin-skinned navy ships packed with electronics are no match for today's
offensive missiles or electronic warfare suites. As a cost comparison, it is ridiculous to
procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or destroyed by relatively
low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.
it is ridiculous to procure fleets of billion dollar ships that can be disabled or
destroyed by relatively low-cost missiles and electronic warfare suites.
"Only two kinds of ships in the Navy: submarines and targets"
@Chris Mallory
What fever dreams do you have that entail American troops fighting
Hezbollah? Keep our troops out of Lebanon and Hezbollah is not an issue.
Only an idiot would invade North Korea. Sign your kids up for that, leave mine out of it.
I didn't say I wanted war and don't see how you could conclude that I did. But Trump is
daring N. Korea to knock the chip off his shoulder and looking for reasons to marginalize
Iran further, so I'd be surprised if we don't find ourselves in a shooting war with one of
them, most likely Iran since they're atop Israel's shit list.
@QuestionMan
What does affirmative action have to do with the Commanding Officer,
Executive Officer and Command Master Chief of the USS Fitzgerald? I'll take a stab at
explaining it to you. Because of affirmative action, competent folks are passed over in favor
of less competent, or incompetent folks, because some of the incompetent folks ancestors may,
or may not have, suffered under a various set of circumstances in the past. Believe it or
not, there may even be incompetent White folks, but in a more merit based time, these
incompetent Whites were kept to a minimum. Having promoted every minority above his skill
level, you still have a certain percentage of incompetent Whites in the field, and because
there are a limited number of positions, you now have more incompetents in charge. Picture a
pool of 100 commander positions, you have a 10% to 20% incompetency level of Whites, in a
merit based organization, they would take up 10% to 20% of command positions. Now we know
that in all probability, every minority commander was promoted based not on his skill, bit
his minority status, you add all those incompetents to the command structure, increasing it
from 10%, to up to 50% of incompetent commanders depending on how many minorities were
promoted unjustly.
As a USCG seaman who once experienced the brutal 18-hour work days underway on 30-day
patrols conducting search-and-rescue or law enforcement operations, it's almost impossible to
articulate the intellectual stamina required of the officer-class as-well-as the
physical/psychological stamina required of the enlisted-class.
@SteveRogers42
Lighter side: Most minorities eschew the combat arms MOS's. The closer you
get to the tip of the spear in the U.S. military, the paler and maler the picture becomes.
Special operations units and the pilot/aviator jobs are overwhelmingly white.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/05/diversity-seals-green-berets/31122851/
"White Privilege," Was a Non-Existent Fact During the Vietnam War.
Of the 58,220 Americans Killed, 49,830 (86%) Were White.
"Statistical Information About Casualties of the Vietnam War"
For many years, John McCain has been one of the major war hawks in the Senate, but he was
not that way for more than a decade after he was first elected to Congress. When he entered the
House of Representatives in 1983, he was a cautious realist, holding the position that U.S.
military power should only be used to protect vital national interests. He developed this view
as a result of his experience in the Vietnam War and his post-Vietnam studying of the origins
of that war at the National War College.
[1] John B. Judis, "Neo-McCain," New Republic, October 16, 2006,
https://newrepublic.com/article/60839/neo-mccain
That view loomed large among military
leaders at this time and was exemplified by General Colin Powell.
In his first year in Congress, McCain, although a strong supporter of then President Reagan,
voted against the latter's decision to continue the deployment of troops in Lebanon during that
country's civil war. The measure would pass in both Houses of Congress, with substantial
support from Democrats, and with only a small minority of Republicans daring to oppose Reagan.
In his floor speech on this issue, McCain stated:
"The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Lebanon? It is said we
are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government.
I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the
U.S. presence stabilize the region? . . . . The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will
be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the
first place.
[3} Quoted in Norman Kempster, "Vietnam War Leaves Legacy of Anguish," Los Angeles Times,
April 28, 1985, http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-28/news/mn-2129...-war/2
After a truck filled with explosives rammed into the Marine compound in Beirut, killing 241
service members, Reagan opted to remove the remaining troops a few months later. McCain was
vindicated and he gained considerable attention from the mainstream media for his prescience
and courage to take such a stand against a popular President from his party. This helped to
develop his reputation as a "maverick."
"The American people and Congress now appreciate that we are neither omniscient nor
omnipotent," McCain would later tell the
Los Angeles Times
, "and they are not prepared
to commit U.S. troops to combat unless there is a clear U.S. national security interest
involved. If we do become involved in combat, that involvement must be of relatively short
duration and must be readily explained to the man in the street in one or two
sentences."[3]
In 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, in which the United States was supporting Iraq, McCain,
now a Senator, opposed President Reagan's move to put American flags on Kuwaiti oil tankers and
have the U.S. Navy protect them against possible Iranian attacks. In the
Arizona
Republican
, he described Reagan's action as a "dangerous overreaction in perhaps the most
violent and unpredictable region in the world." He continued: "American citizens are again
being asked to place themselves between warring Middle East factions, with no tangible allied
support and no real plan on how to respond if the situation escalates."
[4] Quoted in Matt Welch, McCain, The Myth of a Maverick (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007),
p. 157.
McCain did support the Gulf War in 1991, but even here he was something of a moderate.
McCain biographer Matt Welch writes: "When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990,
McCain oscillated between hawkishness and reluctance, denouncing the Iraqi dictator and then
the U.S. government for having cozied up too closely to Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, but
at the same time warning against a protracted land battle."
[5] Welch, p. 158.
McCain stated: "If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi
desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even
contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood."
[6] Quoted in Michael Wines, "Confrontation in the Gulf," New York Times, August 19, 1990,
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/19/world/confrontati...cubz=0
Under Republican Presidents Reagan and the elder Bush, it must be acknowledged that McCain
was not an actual non-interventionist since he supported the American opposition to the Soviet
Union, and what he considered to be pro-Soviet forces in Central America. Moreover, he
supported the removal of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega by the U.S. military in 1989. But
this was still a far cry from the global interventionist that McCain would become.
Moreover, during Bill Clinton's presidency, McCain would be even more non-interventionist
until his radical change during the last years of Clinton's term. In a commencement address he
made to the Marine Corps Command and Staff College in Quantico, Virginia in June 1994, McCain
emphasized that his cautious approach to war resulted from his Vietnam experience. He solemnly
orated that he had not forgotten "the friends who did not return with me to the country we
loved so dearly. The memory of them, of what they bore for honor and country, causes me to look
in every prospective conflict for the shadow of Vietnam."
[7] Address by Senator John McCain National Defense University Graduation, June 16, 1999,
https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/1999/...ea4e56
In December 1992, after losing the November election to Bill Clinton, the elder George Bush
dispatched American troops to Somalia, then embroiled in a many-sided civil war, to facilitate
the provision of food to the starving civilian population. This was part of a United Nations
effort. By the fall of 1993, this military mission morphed into one of arresting war lords and
nation-building. In October 1993, a 15-hour battle took place in Mogadishu that left 18
Americans dead and 73 injured, with many of these casualties the result of two Black Hawk
helicopters being shot down.
[8] NPR Staff, "What A Downed Black Hawk In Somalia Taught America," NPR, October 5, 2013,
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/05/229561805/what-a-down...merica
Because of this loss of American lives, there was a Senate bill supported by President
Clinton which planned to remove American troops from Somalia. Demanding a quicker troop exit,
McCain stated: "Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another six months of United
States forces in harm's way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and
war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is
not."
Drawing an analogy to what happened in Lebanon in 1983, McCain contended: "240 young Marines
lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia, as rapidly, and
as promptly, and as safely as possible."
McCain also opposed Clinton's intervention in Haiti to bring back President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, who had been elected in 1990 and then overthrown in a coup in 1991. After a UN
resolution authorized the use of military force to return Aristide to power, the United States
would ultimately do so on October 15, 1994. In late August 1994, McCain declared: "It is the
post-invasion circumstances that I fear will bog down U.S. forces in a low-level, open-ended,
ill-defined conflict which will require U.S. servicemen and women to serve as a virtual palace
guard for President Aristide once he is returned to power."
[10] "McCain Firm in Opposition to Invasion of Haiti," August 31, 1994,
https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press...c9b56d
The major international concern in the 1990s was the conflict in Yugoslavia!with the focus
first on Bosnia and then Kosovo. After the downfall of Communism, Yugoslavia dissolved, with
the secession, in 1992, of Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia. Bosnia also declared its
independence despite the staunch opposition of Bosnian Serbs, who wanted to remain united with
Serbia. Civil war broke out between the Bosnian Serbs, supported by Serbia, and the
Muslim-dominated Bosnian government. Thousands of people were killed, raped, and expelled from
their homes. The West generally looked upon the atrocities, real and imagined, as being
primarily perpetrated by the Serbs. In the United States, this was especially the case among
American liberals who would advocate "humanitarian" military intervention to protect the
Muslims.
In 1992, the UN peacekeeping forces intervened for humanitarian reasons and set up several
so-called safe areas for refugees, which often turned out to be not very safe. The UN forces
were composed of non-American troops, while American ships and airplanes enforced an arms
embargo.
The wars in Yugoslavia would ultimately lead to a sea change in McCain's position on
American military intervention, but this did not occur all at once. Initially, McCain was, like
many Republicans, opposed to American involvement in the conflict. In fact, biographer Matt
Welch describes McCain as having been "one of the Senate's most stubborn opponents to US
military intervention against Serbs."
[11] Welch, p. 162.
McCain contended that any American military "peace-keeping" effort in
Bosnia would likely lead to a quagmire. "I think you can draw a parallel to the military
challenge in Bosnia with what the Russians faced in Afghanistan," McCain opined in May 1993.
"Even with ground forces and with overwhelming air superiority, they were unable to defeat a
motivated, very capable enemy."
[12] Quoted in Michael Wines, "Conflict in the Balkans; Senator Who Saw War Up Close Doesn't
Want to See Another," New York Times, May 5, 1993,
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/05/world/conflict-in...r.html
Prospects for peace, however, improved in the summer of 1995 when NATO, led by the United
States, launched airstrikes against Bosnian Serb targets, which combined with better-equipped
Muslim and Croatian forces pressured the Bosnian Serbs into participating in peace
negotiations. This led to the Dayton Accords in November 1995, which ended the war in Bosnia.
NATO would provide peace-keeping troops, including 20,000 from the U.S.
Showing that he had not completely dropped his previous cautious approach to intervention,
McCain emphasized that the Dole-McCain resolution was not seeking support for President
Clinton's decision to deploy the troops. "It asks that you support the deployment after the
decision has been made," he said. "The decision has been made by the only American elected to
make such decisions [i.e., the President]." However, McCain also expressed a firm
interventionist conviction: "When we arrive at the moment when less is expected from our
leadership by the rest of the world, then we will have arrived at the moment of our decline."
And he said, "We cannot withdraw from the world into our prosperity and comfort and hope to
keep those blessings."
[18] Quoted in Katherine Q. Seeleye, "Anguished, Senators Vote to Support Bosnia Mission," New
York Times, December 14, 1995,
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/14/world/balkan-acco...ed=all
While a change from his previous strong opposition to American intervention abroad,
supporting this peace effort in Bosnia did not portend McCain's radical transmutation to the
global super-hawk that he would become. That final step would require the involvement of the
neoconservatives. This connection began when, in 1997, McCain and his advisers read an article
in the
Wall Street Journal
editorial page by neoconservatives Bill Kristol and David
Brooks who were promoting the idea of "national greatness" conservatism, which consisted of a
more activist domestic agenda and a more interventionist global role.
[19] Kirkpatrick.
While this article may have fit in with the direction that McCain's thinking was moving, it
had political implications as well: McCain had been eyeing the presidency for a number of
years. According to John Weaver, a major political adviser to McCain at this time: "I wouldn't
call it a 'eureka' moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is
what we are trying to articulate and they [Kristol and Brooks] have already done a lot of the
work. . . . And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the
making-friends business. The
Weekly Standard
represented a part of the primary
electorate that we could get."
[20] Quoted in Kirkpatrick.
And it should be emphasized that McCain's change was not a
gradual one but rather one that was quite radical and took place in a very short period of
time.
McCain would begin to support neocon positions. On January 26, 1998, the neocon-dominated
Project for a New American Century (PNAC), created in 1997 and headed by Bill Kristol, sent a
letter to President Clinton urging him to take unilateral military action against Iraq to
overthrow Saddam and offered a plan to achieve that objective. After the Clinton administration
failed to take action, another neocon-front group, the resurrected Committee for Peace and
Security in the Gulf, which had promoted the 1991 Gulf War, sent another letter urging war.
And, because of Clinton's continued inaction, PNAC would send another such letter in May.
While President Clinton failed to take action, McCain pushed for military action against
Saddam in 1998. McCain co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, committing the United States to
support the overthrow of Saddam and funding opposition groups, most importantly the Iraqi
National Congress. Headed by the notorious neocon-favorite Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi National
Congress would provide much of the spurious information that generated support for the war on
Iraq in 2003. The bill passed in both houses of Congress and on October 31, 1998, President
Clinton signed it into law. Clinton, however, did not intend to implement this measure and
George Bush made no mention of it during the 2000 campaign.
[23] Justin Vaisse, Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 2010), p. 248.
McCain, however, remained in lock-step with the neocons on
Iraq and would be made Honorary Co-chair of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq when it
was created in 2002.
McCain had been in line with the neocons as a strong supporter of Israel even during the
time he adhered to a cautious realist position regarding U.S. military interventionism. He was
the 1999 recipient of the Defender of Jerusalem award, given by the National Council of Young
Israel. In his acceptance speech, McCain in effect told his pro-Zionist audience that the
United States should be prepared to make war for Israel's sake. "Certainly, no one would argue
with the proposition that our armed forces exist first and foremost for the defense of the
United States and its vital interests abroad," McCain intoned. "We choose, as a nation,
however, to intervene militarily abroad in defense of the moral values that are at the center
of our national conscientiousness even when vital national interests are not necessarily at
stake. I raise this point because it lies at the heart of this nation's approach to Israel. The
survival of Israel is one of this country's most important moral commitments. . . . Like the
United States, Israel is more than a nation; it is an ideal."
[24] "Remarks of Senator John McCain to the National Council of Young Israel in New York City,"
John McCain Press Release, March 14, 1999, quoted in Joseph Sobran, "The Patriot Game,"
Wanderer, February 24, 2000, p. 6.
Note that this was diametrically opposed to his former
view that American intervention abroad should only take place to protect vital American
interests.
McCain's hawkish position reflected the views of the neoconservatives. And obviously, his
pro-intervention stance represented a sea change from his previous emphasis on caution and
support of war only if it involved a vital American interest.
. Members of the interventionist Balkan Action Committee, which advocated NATO ground troops
for Kosovo, included such prominent neoconservative mainstays as Richard Perle, Max M.
Kampelman, Morton Abramowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz. Other neoconservative proponents of a tougher
war included Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Norman
Podhoretz.
[30] Balkan Action Council, Press Release, "Balkan Action Council Urges NATO Intervention,
Ground Forces in Kosovo," January 25, 1999, Bosnian Institute,
http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news/260199_6.cfm
Largely because of his bellicose position on Kosovo, McCain was the favorite presidential
candidate for many leading neoconservatives in 2000. As Franklin Foer, editor of the liberal
New Republic,
put it: "Jewish neoconservatives have fallen hard for John McCain. It's
not just unabashed swooner William Kristol, editor of
The Weekly Standard
. McCain has
also won over such leading neocon lights as David Brooks, the entire Podhoretz family,
The
Wall Street Journal
's Dorothy Rabinowitz, and columnist Charles Krauthammer, who declared,
in a most un-Semitic flourish, 'He suffered for our sins.'"
[31] Francis Foer, "The neocons wake up: Arguing the GOP," New Republic, March 20, 2000, p.
13.
McCain was especially championed by Bill Kristol, editor of the
Weekly Standard
, and
his associate David Brooks. They held that McCain would promote their idea of "national
greatness," as opposed to what they regarded as the standpatness of the conservative
Republicans. The "national greatness" program would entail a greater role for the federal
government and more extensive intervention throughout the world to promote American values.
Neoconservatives admired McCain for his support of the American war on Serbia, toward which
many mainstream conservatives were decidedly cool. The attack on Serbia, ostensibly for
humanitarian reasons, provided the intellectual groundwork for the attack on Iraq, the neocons'
fundamental target, since it set the precedent of violating international law's prohibition
against initiating offensive wars. No longer would the United States have to be attacked, or
even threatened, to engage in war. As Kristol and Brooks put it: "For all his conventional
political views, McCain embodies a set of virtues that today are unconventional. The issue that
gave the McCain campaign its initial boost was Kosovo. He argued that America as a great
champion of democracy and decency could not fail to act. And he supported his commander in
chief despite grave doubts about the conduct of the war–while George W. Bush sat out the
debate and Republicans on the Hill flailed at Clinton."
[32] William Kristol and David Brooks, "The McCain Insurrection," Weekly Standard, February 14,
2000, http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-mccain-insurrecti.../11707
But the neocons did not support McCain simply because of his defense of the Kosovars, but
rather because of his broader interventionist position of "rogue state rollback," which pointed
directly at the enemies of Israel. While participating in a Republican debate moderated by
CNN's Larry King on February. 15, 2000, the candidates were asked: "What area of American
international policy would you change immediately as president?" McCain replied: "I'd institute
a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and
from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and
democratically-elected governments." And he added: "As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am
convinced that he will pose a threat to our security."
[33] Talal Al-Khatib, "McCain Rewrites History on 'Rogue-State Rollback'," ABC News, April 17,
2008, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/mcc...s.html
What caused McCain's radical shift from cautious realist to super hawk? Biographer Matt
Welch sees it as essentially a return to his basic world view, largely derived from the
family's military background, after the non-interventionist effect of the Vietnam Syndrome.
Welch writes: "But much less understood is the extent to which interventionist hegemony has
been literally seared into McCain's skull and then reignited late in life after the long
intellectual detour of Vietnam."
[34] Welch, p. xxv.
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart.
There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to
account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer
ambition." He goes on: "He was positioning himself against his own party, while staking out a
distinctive stance independent of the Democrats. It was, in short, an instance of a
presidential candidate maneuvering himself to increase his appeal to the electorate!and, most
importantly, the media."
[35] Raimondo, "Madness of John McCain."
McCain has flip-flopped on domestic issues, sometimes supporting a conservative position and
at other times a more liberal one which wins him the plaudits of the mainstream media!but once
he moved into the neocon orbit regarding U.S. foreign policy, he has stayed there. It is
obviously beneficial for a politician to have the broad neocon network of organizations on
one's side. And more than a few of these neocons!such as Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, David
Brooks, are featured regularly in the mainstream media. Moreover, the mainstream liberal media
itself has adopted many neocon interventionist positions in foreign policy in regard to Russia
and the Middle East, so McCain's positions are held in esteem there, too.
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in McCain's heart.
There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to
account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than
sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy.
I saw how McCain reacted in the Senate when his effort to smuggle Montenegro into NATO
failed, a child not getting his icecream.
Tiny Montenegro of course is just a pain in the ass for peace.
Who in his right mind wants the government of this tiny state to be able to provoke the last
world war ?
People who have seen Russia as the USA arch enemy in fact are religious, religion defined as
'deep seated irrational conviction'.
That Russia just wants to sell oil and gas, and wants to remain independent, impossible.
So McCains invented Russian militarism, as bible belters invented creationism.
McCain was braindead during Comey's testimony in the Senate, even Comey had to screw up
his face in painful confusion as McCain rambled. McCain is no longer fit to water the garden
lawn let alone vote on key bills in congress. He needs to be forcefully removed from the
Senate and replaced by a pro-Trump candidate from Arizona. I like my war heroes uncaptured by
the way.
He's a traitor like his father, the captain of the USS Liberty attacked by Israel in 1967
with the loss of 34 American lives the man who betrayed his men by falling in line with the
cover-up to keep the truth of this war crime from the American people. One degenerate shitbag
begot another. Maybe Junior just can't help it.
Another excellent piece of work on a very putrid subject.
McCain intoned. "We choose, as a nation, however, to intervene militarily abroad in
defense of the moral values
Whenever anyone, especially a politician, starts yapping about defending or promoting
moral values, it's time to grab both your wallet and to head to the toilet.
Alas, I miss Realism. I hoped Trump was a Realist. I despise Idealists. Neocons are
Idealists. Communists are Idealists. They are all monsters. So much blood has been shed in
the name of Idealism. Idealists don't care about inconvenient things like body counts, so
long as their Ideals are being pursued.
I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only course
that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons still have
their claws around our country's throat. I had hoped Trump could resist this, but apparently
he cannot.
@Priss Factor
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in
McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But
what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing
more than sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy.
So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power.
I've noticed that in a lot of the sappy, worthless goons in positions of power, even minor
positions.
BTW, your comment is far beyond even some of the best columnists here. Bravo!
@lucidian
Alas, I miss Realism. I hoped Trump was a Realist. I despise Idealists. Neocons
are Idealists. Communists are Idealists. They are all monsters. So much blood has been shed
in the name of Idealism. Idealists don't care about inconvenient things like body counts, so
long as their Ideals are being pursued.
I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only course
that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons still have
their claws around our country's throat. I had hoped Trump could resist this, but apparently
he cannot.
I want America to be friends with Russia, and fight radical Islam. This is the only
course that makes sense, but the Idealists aren't having any. It appears that the Neocons
still have their claws around our country's throat.
Neocons are the ones promoting and braying about radical Islam as a threat.
The biggest threat we face is the moneyed neocon crowd, and their water carriers and boot
lickers like Little Johnny Boy. Forget Islam as an enemy, radical or otherwise. It's
obviously nothing more than a threat hatched by the usual reptiles to distract our attention
from themselves.
If we can manage to get rid of neocon influence, we'll see radical Islam and many other
"threats" disappear like magic. Unfortunately that's not likely to happen any time soon.
McCain wet started his plane on the deck of the USS FORRESTAL which caused a rocket to
cook off and fire causing a chain reaction which caused and explosion and fire that killed
134 men and wounded 161 McCain was the only one removed from the ship to keep him away from
the crew of the Forrestal. This happened on July 29, 1967.
When McCain was in prison in North Vietnam he was given the name SONG BIRD by the North
Vietnese because he made some 40 tapes condeming the U.S. and this was not because of torture
as he was not tortured and the injuries he sustained were from ejecting from the plane.
McCain has done every thing in his power to cover up the fact that America POWS were left
behind in North Vietnam and there is a youtube video showing McCain at a Senate hearing
cursing a woman who was investigating the issue of POWS left behind in Vietnam and that is
not the only video of McCain cursing out people who asked him questions on this issue.
McCain is one of the supporters of ISIS and he is pictured with members of ISIS numerous
times and as such is of course a TRAITOR just as he was in prison in North Vietnam.
McCain is a TRAITOR and a disgrace to the United States.
"McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier.
So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power."
Great summary. There is a yearning for acceptance and 'being something more' among the
semi-retarded an completely uneducated in US. They know very little and have minimal
experience. They are completely lost in culture, history, geography, languages, economics,
etc But they are living in a wealthy, resources-rich environment. That leads to a disconnect
from the real world, they mix up myths and reality, there is chaos reigning in their minds.
They suffer from a sense of inferiority, so they overcompensate and latch on a few ideas. It
is a result of lack of selectivity and diligence in US education. That permissiveness allows
for creativity and openness, but it also allows total simpletons to rise up because of
connections (McCain) or industriousness. Lately this model has been spreading around the
world. McCain is simply too stupid to be where he is.
A lot of today's problems can be traced to the NATO bombing of Serbia. That's when all
rules, common sense and minimal fairness were tossed out. That's when the western media lost
any sense of standards or basic decency. That's when 'international' law and agreed on rules
was abandoned. Kosovo established a precedence – from changing existing borders by
force and 'we bomb because nobody can really stop us', from media reporting what governments
tell them and unhinged 'journalists with a cause' – it all started with bombing Serbia
to force Kosovo separation. It has been downhill since then with ever-escalating use of force
and lying by the media. McCain was prominent in that fiasco, but so were Blair and Clintons,
European 'leftists' and Islamic expansionists. Kosovo created a template: it combined
Neo-cons with unhinged liberal bombers, and added Islamic fanatics dreaming about taking over
Europe. We are simply living with the consequences. McCain was there from the beginning.
So what happened? Has there been a gradual onset of dementia that's gone undiagnosed? Or
was he "eying the presidency" and needed the sponsors that would carry him there? Either way
the man has been mentally and morally unfit all along for his entire life. He's a spoiled
brat who graduated at the bottom of his class yet was allowed to hold positions he should
never have had due to family clout. He has an irrational animus towards the Russians which
has led him to try to drag the US into unnecessary confrontations with them and which has had
the effect of spurring them into building up their military even quicker as they realize that
it may not be possible to make any worthwhile peace agreements from a position of weakness.
Of course we haven't gone into his immigration stance which has harmed this country
immeasurably. He's been bad, always, from childhood on. It's strange to see that the voters
of Arizona kept returning this cretin to the Senate over and over. He's been there far too
long for anything worthwhile he may have done. Go away, just go.
McCain is owned by the MIC. He came home drunk with a job in politics waiting for him.
McCain's role is to collude with his defense contractors for costly welfare that undermines
US security. He's just like any other scumbag Senator, a puppet for the mafia.
Haven't we learned that what a politician says is at any given time to be typically worth
less than worn out tires? Not the twiddling author of this drawn out character assessment.
Conservatives are hopelessly delusional.
There's no better example of standard issue duplicitu than the Orange Realtor who claimed
he was going to cut defense spending, the F-35 and John McCain's legacy all at once. All
horseshit – all of it.
Incompetent officers running the obsolete USS John McCain into a cargo ship. That about
sums it up.
Members of the interventionist
Balkan Action Committee
, which advocated NATO
ground troops for Kosovo, included such prominent neoconservative mainstays as Richard
Perle, Max M. Kampelman, Morton Abramowitz, and Paul Wolfowitz. Other neoconservative
proponents of a tougher war included Eliot Cohen, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Bill
Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Norman Podhoretz.
Well, what do ya know? Look who was behind the push for war against Serbia. And the author
of this fine article clearly articulates the motivation for this supposed R2P intervention
against Serbia:
The attack on Serbia, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons, provided the intellectual
groundwork for the attack on Iraq, the neocons' fundamental target,
since it set the
precedent of violating international law's prohibition against initiating offensive
wars
.
And we have these hasbarists (both xian and Jewish) trying to convince us that all these
wars are truly for humanitarian reasons. What chutzpah!
So, he was always hungry for recognition from the Power.
another word for 'the Power', is The Fiend
which I consider somewhat more accurate in its description
in a word, McCain is a traitor
a man willing to betray his office, his constituents, the men and women in uniform, his
sacred vows, and all notions of honor or decency in service to our nations most determined
enemies. If he thinks doing so will advance his personal ambitions.
a crack whore has a thousand times more integrity
dog vomit in the grass is heroic by comparison
I'm reminded of that Detroit physician who diagnosed healthy patients as having cancer and
requiring expensive chemo treatments, so that the physician could get richer and also bask in
the grandeur of being a 'great healer', once his patients were declared 'healed'. At least
the ones who didn't die from the chemo (many). A man who is trusted with the health and
welfare of others, and then betrays that trust and sees those people die for his personal
gain.
and then any article on John McBloodstain that leaves out his wanton corruption vis-a-vis
the Savings and Loan mass looting, the 2008 mass looting, his treason in Vietnam, his treason
vis-a-vis the USS Liberty and all the other remarkable acts of betrayal and craven venality
that this singularly loathsome man has wrought upon the people of this planet is wholly
inadequate for a person to get a grasp on just what a spectacularly vile little man the
Bloodstain really is.
It says something about the Jews that own and control our fecal government and media when
their favorites to play POTUS are the very worst human beings in the nation. Hillary Clinton
and John McBloodstain are arguably the most repulsive people in human memory.
the lying, vicious cackling gorgon and that murderous little Igor to the Fiend
@Priss Factor
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in
McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But
what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing
more than sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy. Excellent
synopsis. Sounds about right.
Keeping Obamacare was McCain's final act to really stick it to the people who doubted he
has the power. See! Look what I can do! The liberals swooned. John received congratulatory
calls and emails from Dems all week, in the end they reiterated how they always know they can
depend on John. Pitiful.
the planet will be a noticeably better place. The air will taste less of sulfur and
children and dogs will smile more. There'll be a frolic in the mood of people everywhere,
and a new light of hope and beauty will dance in people's eyes.
Unfortunately, Rurik, for every Killary and McBloodstain that pass away, there are dozens
more to take their place. I need not run down the list of the candidates from both major
parties that ran in the presidential primaries.
@Priss Factor
Justin Raimondo sees it otherwise: "It is impossible to know what is in
McCain's heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But
what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing
more than sheer ambition."
It's more Hambition than ambition.
If McCain were really about ambition, he would have been more flexible and savvy like
Clinton the chameleon. Or Trump who took up different positions to play to populist
passions.
But in his foreign policy, McCain went from cautious and moderate to hardline, even to his
political detriment. If he was really a political animal driven by ambition, he would have
moderated his position on the Iraq War once things went badly. By 2008, even majority of
conservatives had turned against the war that became associated with Bush II, a truly reviled
and despised political figure(and rightly so).
So, why did McCain stick to his guns on foreign policy?
McCain is a mental midget. He wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a soldier. So,
he was always hungry for recognition from the Power. This is why he was so partial to sucking
up to the NYT crowd. The idea that intelligent and educated Liberal establishment praised him
as a 'moderate and sane' Republican was very flattering to him. But because he was a Gopper,
he couldn't lean too much to the Libby side.
Now, what became the intellectual and moral cornerstone of the GOP? Neocons. Why? Neocons
gained control of the thinktanks and Big Ideas. They were supposed to be the Mind of the GOP
in contrast to Evanjelly dummies, staid Paleocons, soulless libertarians, and beer-guzzling
NASCAR types. Also, Neocons are Jews, and Holocaust became the neo-religion of America. So,
the idea that Jewish Neocons, the mind and soul of the GOP, warmed up to him made him wet his
pants with joy. Oh gosh, these Jews, yes, these intelligent and soulful Jews(the Holocaust
folks) were praising him as a man of integrity, vision, ethics, and courage.
So, it wasn't just political ambition. It was psychological and emotional, especially as
Wasps and White Conservatives had lost so much intellectual and moral capital since the 60s.
Wasp mind culture came to be associated with Dan Quayle, and Bush II presidency nailed the
final coffins in Wasp intellectualism. Now, surely there are many very smart Wasps, but they
were no longer joining the ranks of GOP elites. Most smart Wasps elites either became
apolitical or libby-dib and into 'white guilt' crap. Also, among the boomers, most brainy and
talented Wasps became more like Clintons than the Bushes. Democrats. So, to be a conservative
Wasp in the 90s and 2000s was to be an intellectual zero. Also, with Holocaust and MLK cult
as new religions of America, soon to be followed by worship of rainbow-colored homo anus,
Wasp conservatives had no moral capital either.
So, just think how McCain felt when the brainy & soulful Holocaust people put their arms
around him. He wet his pants. It's like in THE GODFATHER the novel. Luca Brasi thinks himself
irredeemable and cursed. But Vito Corleone, an intelligent and wise man, reached out to him.
Brasi was so stunned that the great Vito would befriend someone so gross and vile that he
became the most loyal henchman of Vito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za3vgqxQDHE
McCain felt saved! He'd been confused and messed up all his life. He was shot down in
Vietnam. He became crippled for life. He'd collaborated with the enemy but a myth was created
around him that was mostly phony. The war was lost. He tried to make peace and seek
reconciliation with Vietnam. But he was never sure of anything. He was a broken man whose
politics was about compromise and moderation. No passion. But when he joined in backing the
Serbian War, the praise from Neocons made him finally feel saved and armed with purpose in
life. He finally had the intellectual and moral blessing he'd craved all his life. He was
befriended also by Joe Lieberman, a wise-sounding Jew. Of course, these neocons and Zionists
were cunning and shrewd and hardly wise, but Jews gained this aura of sanctimony as the holy
Holocaust people... with lots of money and brains.
Another reason why McCain became increasingly vocal and aggressive in foreign policy was
because it's the only arena in which a white gentile leader can be manly and tough, at least
against enemies chosen by Jews. It's like a dog better listen to the master in the house, but
it can bark loudly at other dogs and creatures outside. Because of the cult of 'white guilt'
and Moral Hegemony of Jews(Holocaust), Blacks(Selma), homos(whoopity poo), and even
illegals(as 'undocumented immigrants' in a 'nation of immigrants'), the white gentile man has
NO moral authority in the US. So, he can only act tough in foreign policy. And by denouncing
other nations without 'human rights', even a white male as a proud American can act morally
holier-than-thou.
Of course, white males can't choose whom to hate, berate, and bark at. Jews get to choose.
And Jews chose Russia, Syria, and Iran. And North Korea to a lesser extent. And McCain barks
at them. But his toughness is bogus since he has no autonomy in choosing the enemy. If
neocons were to decide that Putin is alright, McCain would stop barking at Russia. If Neocons
said Saudis must be taken down, McCain would bark in that direction.
Also, foreign policy is the ONLY card McCain has left. He lost EVERYTHING. He lost to Bush
in 2000. He supported the Iraq War and got burned as a result. He got burned in 2008 to
Obama. His amnesty was angrily opposed by GOP voters. The financial and housing policies that
he endorsed went to hell. And Trump insulted him and did everything opposite what McCain did
and won. And Putin is a respected leader around the world. McCain is a nothing. Maybe a
secret part of him resents the bargain he made with Neocons in 2000. But that is the only
card he has left: the impression of him as a tough warrior standing up for American values
and denouncing tyrants like Putin and etc. Of course, many people see how bogus this is.
McCain met with Alqaeda scum in Syria and with Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. No one respects him.
Conservative voters hate him. He won over and over in Arizona only because Democrats are
allowed to vote in GOP primaries. Liberals had pretended to respect him but burned his ass so
bad in 2008 in their support of Obama that the charade of non-partisan amicability is over.
McCain is totally irrelevant. So, the only card he has left is accusing Trump of being a
Russian agent and subverting his presidency out of sheer resentment and envy. Yes. Basically,
McCain is mentally unstable. He may have been able to keep it under control for a while, but
whatever caused him to snap in the late 90′s (and doubtless raw ambition played a
role), he has long passed the point of no return (as has America, sadly).
the planet will be a noticeably better place. The air will taste less of sulfur and
children and dogs will smile more. There'll be a frolic in the mood of people everywhere,
and a new light of hope and beauty will dance in people's eyes.
Unfortunately, Rurik, for every Killary and McBloodstain that pass away, there
are dozens more to take their place. I need not run down the list of the candidates from both
major parties that ran in the presidential primaries.
there are dozens more to take their place.
true Geo, but at least the world can be rid of a spectacularly execrable pestilence that
has plagued it for so terribly long. Even if Tom Cotton is waiting in the wings to take its
place.
just think of all the millions of people who suffer the Bloodstain's every feculent
breath.
the POWs in Vietnam and their families
the survivors of the Liberty and their families
the murdered souls throughout the world, from Ukraine to Syria whose unimaginable
suffering can be laid directly at the feet of the Stain
all the people who have been tortured or crucified by ISIS
those people in Odessa, Ukraine who were burned alive, or the villagers in Donbas, and so
many other places who have lost loved ones or been maimed by the Bloodstain's relentless,
relentless, relentless war mongering.
all these people will be able to wake to a new day knowing that John McCain is no longer
befouling the air we all breath with his rotten lungs.
sure, Tom Cotton is being groomed, and there's no doubt a bevy of would-be traitors and
assholes waiting to take McCain's place, but at least
he
will be dead and burning in
hell.
Simple explanation: becoming an agent of influence for Israel is the sure route to the
sort of $$ you need to run a presidential campaign (unless you are already loaded like
DT).
@Priss Factor
I agree with Justin Raimondo that McCain's evolution from realism to
hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition. People may argue that many of
his policies are not populist, but that is precisely the point. His strategy is to strike out
a different stance in order to differentiate himself from the many other politicians who have
the same ambitions. Hillary Clinton's strategy is to be a populist, McCain's strategy is to
be an anti-populist.
@WorkingClass
McStain is what he is. The real problem is the people who vote for him.
The real problem is the people who vote for him.
What are the people to do when the senate passes 98-2 a resolution to impose sanctions on
Iran, Russia, NK?
The real problem is the swamp and how to drain it.
It was encouraging to see that the most popular candidates from the two major parties
during the previous presidential primaries were both putting forward policies that were
against the status quo. And more and more people are beginning to realize the Luggenpresse of
Weimerica is pumping out fake news. My prediction is the establishment will manage to remove
trump either by impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020 and install one of their puppets who
will resume their program of globalism (mass immigration, international trade agreements, and
more regime change wars) to the point where things will become intolerably unbearable for the
average American. Once that happens, the conditions will have been satisfied for the swamp
draining to begin in earnest.
Bottom line: things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get any better.
Published on 21 Aug 2017
A Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS John S. McCain, collided with a commercial vessel
east of Singapore early Monday, 10 sailors are missing and five were injured, the Navy
said.
This is the second incident in which a USS Arleigh Burke destroyer collides with a tanker
or container. In June the USS Fitzgerald collided with a Philippine flagged container ship
off the coast of Japan near Tokyo. How can such a sophisticated and state of the art vessel
(Arleigh Burke class destroyer) collide with tankers and container ships? One is small and
fast, the other is big and slow. Standards in the US navy have fallen it would seem. Perhaps
the US navy is a giant with feet of clay?
And there's that
navy-wide
review
I mentioned a day or two ago. Although it was an easy guess, as it is common
American military practice.
Once again I am surprised, because I made the error of not considering the area where
these crashes took place. This was an easy public-relations victory for the Chinese, because
American military operations are clearly increasing the risk to merchant traffic in the
vicinity. And once again, as was the case in Syria, you have to ask yourself, what business
is it of Uncle Sam? Does he have to intervene for a compelling reason – can anyone show
that Chinese claims in the South China Sea are oppressing someone or taking away their
rights? Or is it just that nothing can be done around the world without first clearing it
with Washington, to see if there might be American objections from half a world away to
whatever one might be doing in one's own region?
America likes to say that it conducts these operations to reassure its allies in the
region that it will not abandon them, and will stand up for their rights. But who is that, in
this instance? The Philippines? I would have to say the national tone there from the
democratically-elected leadership was decidedly negative toward the United States and
decidedly positive toward China and reaching a mutually-beneficial agreement with the latter;
so much so that the USA must stir up a rebellion there, invoke the ever-lurking spectre of
ISIS as it now routinely does to justify its military presence.
It seems more the case that America sees its regional influence diminishing to a pinpoint,
just before the screen goes black, and is – dare I say it? desperately – trying
to reassert it while everyone still fears Uncle Sam's big stick.
When I made that suggestion I was half-joking; it would indeed be a clever false-flag, but on
reflection it would only work if the merchant ship rolled the destroyer under her bow and
there were no survivors. Somebody would inevitably survive who was on the bridge or in the
operations room (except the Americans call it by a different name, 'CIC', if I recall
correctly, for 'Combat Information Center') who would say "He said on the common channel that
he would do a straight green-to-green (his starboard side to your starboard side) passage,
and at the last second he turned right into us!!" Both captains survived, and were – or
will be – relieved of their commands, and they would never humbly accept that in the
case of a deliberate act of aggression for which they were unprepared. The damage is also too
slight (although it was fatal for some in both cases) to have been a deliberate attempt to
sink the other ship, although it demonstrably is more than enough for a major incident.
At its narrowest point – Phillips Channel, south of Singapore – the Strait of
Malacca is only 1.5 nautical miles from one side to the other. 2,500 yards, for two ships to
pass, one of which is 100 feet wide and the other 60 feet wide. Most of it is not that
narrow, but it must be hair-raising given the amount of traffic that passes through it all
day and all night long. Those who run it regularly and know it, even in the dark, like the
back of their own hand are sometimes a little casual about navigation lights. Radars perform
poorly in areas where the land is close on both sides because of bounce and echo, and even
those designed for anti-collision are susceptible to land shadow and clutter. It's likely
just too many ships in too little water.
Something that has always seemed to me like a tremendous vulnerability for terrorism,
though, is US airports that were either built right in the middle of a city, or the city grew
up around them so that you have a parade of airliners passing all day long right over the
rooftops of residential buildings. San Diego International is a classic example, only 3 miles
from downtown San Diego.
In a landing pattern an airliner cannot easily maneuver, and its glide path to the runway
is as predictable as sunset.
And it's flying right over your head, as you are crouched on the rooftop with your
shoulder-launched Stinger or whatever. You could almost throw a potato and hit it. If I were
in charge of airport security, that'd make me nervous.
The US Navy has relieved the commander of US 7th fleet after a destroyer collided with
a merchant vessel east of the Malacca Strait. It was the fourth time a US warship has been
involved in a collision in the Pacific theater this year.
Seems to be more of a PR move to me as there appears to be a huge bureaucratic distance
from those more directly responsible for inadequate training, improper staff assignments,
etc. that may have led to the accidents.
Very true and the command crew has been relieved of duties but this guy is the admiral of the
7th fleet. I understand that it is a 2-year "billet" so he could have hardly been on the job
long enough to have a positive or negative impact on the skill level and readiness of the
crew in question.
One possible explanation is that his earlier assignments were in the areas that appear to
be deficient. Or, they just needed to make a high level example to satisfy the public that
something is being done. Not an expert here at all, just trying to understand the motivations
of the action.
There are also ten families who lost loved ones in the collision with the oil tanker Alnic
plus another five sailors who will probably sue for compensation for injuries they suffered
during the crash. Ten deaths are likely to concentrate the mind on finding ways to head off
possible criminal or civil lawsuits brought by the families.
Well, it's hard to see what CO 7th Fleet could have done differently – sail with every
ship and stand the bridge watch for the whole trip? Nobody knows yet what caused these
crashes, and it has much of the smell of action taken to reassure the public that something
is being done, although that something might be neither useful or productive.
I suppose he might have simply imposed a unilateral moratorium on US naval operations in
the Pacific. Nobody would have gotten hurt or killed, and those ships would be undamaged. But
I suspect he might have incurred the wrath of the upper echelon in that case, too.
Neither do I, but may I posit a theory? In short, the USN is not up to the task. In long,
the
Pivot to China
aka the
Containment of China and protecting the USA's global
hegemony
requires extensive logistical, human etc.changes that the USN is struggling to
manage, and that is even before you take note of the geography and risks associated with
gigantic choke points such as the Malacca Straits through which a huge number of ships pass,
depth of water etc.
It's one thing to say your are going to do something, it is an entirely different thing to
actually do it. Not to mention that China has been pushing back (EP-3 Ares II shoot down for
starters).
It also seems to me rather a sign of arrogance and hubris. After all, when you are the
world's greatest power it clearly shouldn't be difficult to move your military around
easily.
No one is fooled by cheap words and open chest beating.
I hope it does not occur to them that what they need, at least according to the visionary
Mahan, is local bases to support their logistics and operations. Because that is going to be
a non-starter from the Chinese point of view. A sign that this weakness is understood would
be a significant buildup of naval forces at Yokosuka, Sasebo and Okinawa.
While in some cases, like Colombia, the US imperialists still
search vainly for something to justify endless intervention through paramilitaries,
civil wars, orchestrated coups, etc., they have completely retired from this business concerning,
for example, Afghanistan.
The following cynical, warmongering hawk, completely demolished every pretext and ethics, concerning
Afghanistan, through mainstream media. Speaking on MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, retired Colonel Jack
Jacobs said: I'm gonna be facetious(!), but the first conclusion that came to my mind, is that we're going
now harvest poppies and we're going to sell them(!), and that's how we're going to fund it(!), which
is exactly what the Taliban is doing. But no, it sounds like we are going to be involved in extricating, releasing(!!!) mineral wealth,
and there is substantial mineral wealth, and we are going to take that out of Afghanistan .
And the routine (lately) cheap justification follows: The Chinese are already there, doing that, and I think the United States is concerned that
we are not getting our share(!!!)
Then Maddow asks: Under US military ethics(!?), can the US government go in with the protection of US soldiers and
extract the wealth of another country?
The response: Well, we can, we've done it before, there is no reason why we can't do it again (!!!!!!)
Watch the video and very spot-on commending by the hosts of the Jimmy Dore show:
Earlier , Donald Trump not only admitted cynically the real reason behind the US
invasion in Afghanistan, but proved that he is willing to expand the establishment agenda, through
the mainstream media.
Now, there is no doubt that the US army is the military branch of the US corporate neocolonialism.
By the way, China didn't invade or bombed any country ... dear bloody US hawks
Americans no longer fight to keep their shores safe,
Just to keep the jobs going in the arms making workplace.
Then they pretend to be gripped by some sort of political reflex,
But all they're doing is paying dues to the Military Industrial Complex.
The Military and
the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary. The Military and
the Monetary,
get together whenever they think its necessary,
They turn our brothers and sisters into mercenaries,
they are turning the planet into a cemetery.
The Military and the Monetary, use the media as intermediaries,
they are determined to keep the citizens secondary, they make so many decisions that are
arbitrary.
We're marching behind a commander in chief,
who is standing under a spotlight shaking like a leaf.
Bannon supported Blackwater founder Erik Prince's plan to use military contractors in the war
in Afghanistan and was against National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster's plan to deploy tens of thousands
of more troops to the Afghan conflict, according to a source with knowledge of the deliberations.
While saying he would "bomb the s**t" out of ISIS, Trump ran on a largely non-interventionist
campaign. He attacked President Bush for invading Iraq and cautioned against toppling the Assad regime
in Syria.
His White House, however, is not populated with like-minded thinkers. Even the most Trump-like
senior adviser left, Stephen Miller,
was a strong supporter of the Iraq War and primarily focuses on domestic policy issues.
Trump does have the habit of speaking to outside advisers on the phone and calls with Bannon and
Roger Stone might be the only times Trump hears war-weary voices.
Trump's power grows. And, his people don't speak first. (Trump speaks what The People are thinking.
Offend Trump and you have offended almost everybody.)
Bye, by)e Democrats. You can't win WITHOUT a Revolution...and not very many of the real People
are really interested in efforts to get one going.
Remember the CENTER of it all (ISIS, RIOTS) is London/Wall Street.
Everything since last Summer, has been coming out of MI5/6 to our FBI, CIA, NSA Business Intelligence
Empire.
The People are not going to go against Lincoln and they aren't
going to stand for anyone to take down the "States Rights" statues.
People are for a Strong Central Government and for a Strong State Government. It isn't "either/or".
It's BOTH. For Mob Rule...uh, not so much... Trump's power is growing steadily.
The People are sometimes for Left, sometimes for Right. It isn't "either/or". It's BOTH.
If you don't know this, you don't know anything about Americans.
These killings and riots are highly organized by both assets and AGENTS of the Anti forces of
Deep State, Deep Business. None of this is "from" WE, The People.
Bannon is now in a better position to expose the deep state. McMaster is probably soiling
his diapers.
Jesse4 > Hillary Clintub • 2 days ago
The deep state just kicked Bannon's incredibly huge butt.
lorsarah > Jesse4 • 2 days ago
The Deep State oligarchs and hacks may have won a small battle but their days are numbered.
The movement that Bannon is part of is growing.
oknow • 2 days ago
This whole intervention crap is for the birds and a waste of money as the years have shown.
If the Germans and Japanese were Islamic or international religious armies it would have never
ended. Maybe it is time that the great oil powers man up and fight.
Trump not backing down from the NK is what strength is. Not this crap of 15 years in foreign
nations.
T100C1970 > oknow • 2 days ago
This bravo sierra warfare did not start with Muzzies. It started with Commies. The Korean
war was the first war the US did not win. We got a tie with the pathetic Norks. Then in the
era in which I served as an Army Officer we managed to LOSE to the Cong + NVA.. The wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan are so far more like "ties" ... assuming you can call it a tie to spend
billions and lose thousands of troops to preserve a sort of status quo.
lorsarah > oknow • 2 days ago
"Not backing down from North Korea" IS foreign intervention, as everyone with a brain knows
that NK, which can't even keep its lights on, is not a threat.
11B30L • 2 days ago
President Trump is allowing his "little tiny ego" to get in the way of White House staffing
decisions, according to conservative commentator Ann Coulter.
Burrito Jackson • 2 days ago
Trump just sent his generals proposal back to the drawing board to keep us in Afghanistan.
Trump hasn't changed. Tired of hearing everyone controls Trump like he is a puppet.
lorsarah > Burrito Jackson • 2 days ago
Why are we there AT ALL? To protect our freedom? Of course not. Self-defense? Of course
not. It's lunacy, just as Vietnam was. But the military-industrial complex makes big money on
lunacy such as Afghanistan.
wars r u.s. • a day ago
Trump is a dove? He bombed Syria with no evidence that Assad did the chemical attack. He
dropped the MOAB on Afghanistan and his only real problem with that war is that we're not
winning. We continue to back the Saudi's in their onslaught of Yemen. Trump wants to decertify
Iran's compliance to the nuke deal even though Iran is in compliance which could lead to the
war the neocons and liberal hawks(Israeli firsters) have been salivating over for decades. He
threatens NK with "fire ad fury" and even recently threatened Venezuela...
Bannon supported Blackwater founder Erik Prince's plan to use military contractors in the war
in Afghanistan and was against National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster's plan to deploy tens of thousands
of more troops to the Afghan conflict, according to a source with knowledge of the deliberations.
While saying he would "bomb the s**t" out of ISIS, Trump ran on a largely non-interventionist
campaign. He attacked President Bush for invading Iraq and cautioned against toppling the Assad regime
in Syria.
His White House, however, is not populated with like-minded thinkers. Even the most Trump-like
senior adviser left, Stephen Miller,
was a strong supporter of the Iraq War and primarily focuses on domestic policy issues.
Trump does have the habit of speaking to outside advisers on the phone and calls with Bannon and
Roger Stone might be the only times Trump hears war-weary voices.
Trump's power grows. And, his people don't speak first. (Trump speaks what The People are thinking.
Offend Trump and you have offended almost everybody.)
Bye, by)e Democrats. You can't win WITHOUT a Revolution...and not very many of the real People
are really interested in efforts to get one going.
Remember the CENTER of it all (ISIS, RIOTS) is London/Wall Street.
Everything since last Summer, has been coming out of MI5/6 to our FBI, CIA, NSA Business Intelligence
Empire.
The People are not going to go against Lincoln and they aren't
going to stand for anyone to take down the "States Rights" statues.
People are for a Strong Central Government and for a Strong State Government. It isn't "either/or".
It's BOTH. For Mob Rule...uh, not so much... Trump's power is growing steadily.
The People are sometimes for Left, sometimes for Right. It isn't "either/or". It's BOTH.
If you don't know this, you don't know anything about Americans.
These killings and riots are highly organized by both assets and AGENTS of the Anti forces of
Deep State, Deep Business. None of this is "from" WE, The People.
Bannon is now in a better position to expose the deep state. McMaster is probably soiling
his diapers.
Jesse4 > Hillary Clintub • 2 days ago
The deep state just kicked Bannon's incredibly huge butt.
lorsarah > Jesse4 • 2 days ago
The Deep State oligarchs and hacks may have won a small battle but their days are numbered.
The movement that Bannon is part of is growing.
oknow • 2 days ago
This whole intervention crap is for the birds and a waste of money as the years have shown.
If the Germans and Japanese were Islamic or international religious armies it would have never
ended. Maybe it is time that the great oil powers man up and fight.
Trump not backing down from the NK is what strength is. Not this crap of 15 years in foreign
nations.
T100C1970 > oknow • 2 days ago
This bravo sierra warfare did not start with Muzzies. It started with Commies. The Korean
war was the first war the US did not win. We got a tie with the pathetic Norks. Then in the
era in which I served as an Army Officer we managed to LOSE to the Cong + NVA.. The wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan are so far more like "ties" ... assuming you can call it a tie to spend
billions and lose thousands of troops to preserve a sort of status quo.
lorsarah > oknow • 2 days ago
"Not backing down from North Korea" IS foreign intervention, as everyone with a brain knows
that NK, which can't even keep its lights on, is not a threat.
11B30L • 2 days ago
President Trump is allowing his "little tiny ego" to get in the way of White House staffing
decisions, according to conservative commentator Ann Coulter.
Burrito Jackson • 2 days ago
Trump just sent his generals proposal back to the drawing board to keep us in Afghanistan.
Trump hasn't changed. Tired of hearing everyone controls Trump like he is a puppet.
lorsarah > Burrito Jackson • 2 days ago
Why are we there AT ALL? To protect our freedom? Of course not. Self-defense? Of course
not. It's lunacy, just as Vietnam was. But the military-industrial complex makes big money on
lunacy such as Afghanistan.
wars r u.s. • a day ago
Trump is a dove? He bombed Syria with no evidence that Assad did the chemical attack. He
dropped the MOAB on Afghanistan and his only real problem with that war is that we're not
winning. We continue to back the Saudi's in their onslaught of Yemen. Trump wants to decertify
Iran's compliance to the nuke deal even though Iran is in compliance which could lead to the
war the neocons and liberal hawks(Israeli firsters) have been salivating over for decades. He
threatens NK with "fire ad fury" and even recently threatened Venezuela...
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker.
For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later
discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the
Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...
Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one
or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as
sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to
consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers
are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage
which might destroy those projects in the future.
Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.
Presumably, Bannon's mouth (
American Prospect
interview) got him fired -- requested to
resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly
and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and
wish him the best.'"
https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/
When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and
in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the
propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.
It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the
weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no
fog!
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by
the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s
what sort of message given the context Gore opined?
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign
As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself
as a previously closeted Neocon?
Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit
US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government
in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon
said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity."
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners.
First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster
and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to
understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye
which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)
This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.
Pardon Me!
High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump
By Tom Engelhardt
Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until
recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were
the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of
ours.
We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the
architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake
of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last
forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the
ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the
end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a
periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the
chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the
British in its shadow.
Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond
compare?
And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.
You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the
other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also
why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.
Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the
justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and
reality.
Nah...don't quite agree on this one.
The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't
forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily
what he believes.
Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated.
If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid
stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US
decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them.
But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's
crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives
is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans
and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason
for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national
news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that
is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.
But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals
and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting
the Left's disgust with President Trump
People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts
have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more
difficult.
The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions
on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties,
passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.
The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan,
Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky
and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.
In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating
tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia
and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on
the table just where the neocons want it.
The Putin Obstacle
As for Russia, the
neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since
2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military
strike over
dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus
on Aug. 21, 2013.
Subsequent
evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.
While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would
benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking
on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed
states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to
shatter
the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.
Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi
Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence
to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government
of Bashar al-Assad
For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations
with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb
and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S.
military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary
and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.
Punishing Russia
It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman
identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize
of removing Putin in Russia.
Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria
Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including
neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.
When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification
with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move
as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who
defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the
neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to
these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."
Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were
swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade
earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the
violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with
U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.
But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved
extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change"
war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.
Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially
flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian
affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to
kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.
Successful Propaganda
As part of this propaganda process, the
jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories
to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for
fear of being beheaded.
Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely
chemical attack,
the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous
pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the
alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the
other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
said ,
"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press."
But all these successes in the neocons'
"perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.
Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to
the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia.
The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of
the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence"
contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible
to trace.
So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the
government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an
assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared
the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched
his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
'Hand-Picked' Analysts
According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their
Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that
it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us"
approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.
Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy
Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had
been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt
Romney
The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America
as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate
stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky
Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by
the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies.
So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday
column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point
about Washington groupthink.
"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been
the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that
the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom
of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.
Lost Logic
But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling"
in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is
now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute
despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the
Russian government.
Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions
bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:
"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing
Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential
election has been outrageous."
However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents.
Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support
its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.
Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation
true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political
motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush
's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene
in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.
But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets.
Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive
for more "regime change" wars.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect
of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear
war, more likely.
In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S.
government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with
the nuclear agreement.
And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs
signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente
between Washington and Moscow.
In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and
coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party
hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of
nuclear war is being ignored.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... The Trump administration, the Pentagon and weapon salesmen will of course use the occasion to further their aims. ..."
"... implicating Russia, however farfetched, is always good if one wants to sell more weapons. ..."
"... One Pentagon hobby horse is the THAAD medium range missile defense systems that will now be stationed in South Korea. This even as it is incapable to defend South Korea from short range North Korean missiles. It is obviously targeted at China. ..."
"... The Reagan wannabe currently ruling in the White House may soon revive Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative , aka "Star Wars", which was first launched in 1984. SDI was the expensive but unrealistic dream of lasers in space and other such gimmicks. Within the SDI the U.S. military threw out hundreds of billions for a Global Ballistic Missile Defense which supposedly would defend the continental U.S. from any incoming intercontinental missile. The program was buried in the early 1990s. One son of Star Wars survived. It is the National Missile Defense with 40 interceptors in Alaska and California. It has never worked well and likely never will. If NMD would function as promised there would be no reason to fear any North Korean ICBMs. Missile defense is largely a fraud to transfers billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to various weapon producing conglomerates. ..."
"... Something is wrong with the North Korea story. According to the NY Times (Zerohedge Aug 14) the rocket engines the DPRK is using on their ICBMs come from a factory in the Ukraine. The Ukraine is a U.S. client state. It seems inconceivable that the CIA would not know to whom this factory sells its engines. ..."
The claim that the U.S. intelligence agencies are exaggeration North Korean capabilities is
likely false. But it is also reasonable.
The Trump administration, the Pentagon and weapon
salesmen will of course use the occasion to further their aims.
One missile defense marketing pundit
claimed
today that the North Korean missile engines used in the recent tests were bought
from factories in Ukraine or Russia. The usual propagandist at the New York Times
picked
up
on that to further their anti-Russian theme:
Mr. Elleman was unable to rule out the possibility that a large Russian missile enterprise,
Energomash, which has strong ties to the Ukrainian complex, had a role in the transfer of the
RD-250 engine technology to North Korea. He said leftover RD-250 engines might also be stored
in Russian warehouses.
But the engines in question are of different size and thrust than the alleged R-250 engines
and the claimed time-frame does not fit at all. The Ukrainian government
denied
any transfer of missiles or designs.
The story was debunked with in hours by two
prominent
experts
. But
implicating Russia, however farfetched, is always good if one wants to sell more
weapons.
One Pentagon hobby horse is the THAAD medium range missile defense systems that will now
be stationed in South Korea. This even as it is incapable to defend South Korea from short
range North Korean missiles. It is obviously targeted at China.
The Reagan wannabe currently ruling in the White House may soon revive Reagan's
Strategic
Defense Initiative
, aka "Star Wars", which was first launched in 1984. SDI was the
expensive but unrealistic dream of lasers in space and other such gimmicks. Within the SDI the
U.S. military threw out hundreds of billions for a Global Ballistic Missile Defense which
supposedly would defend the continental U.S. from any incoming intercontinental missile. The
program was buried in the early 1990s. One son of Star Wars survived. It is the National
Missile Defense with 40 interceptors in Alaska and California. It has never worked well and
likely never will. If NMD would function as promised there would be no reason to fear any North
Korean ICBMs. Missile defense is largely
a fraud
to transfers billions of
dollars from U.S. taxpayers to various weapon producing conglomerates.
I expect that the North Korean "threat" will soon be used to launch "SDI - The Sequel",
another attempt to militarize space with billions thrown into futuristic but useless "defense"
projects. It will soothe the Pentagon's grief over the success North Korea had despite decades
of U.S. attempts to subjugate that state.
Posted by b on August 14, 2017 at 01:51 PM |
Permalink
thanks b... regarding mcmasters words - "A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality
against its own people?" how does this get supported? what is the evidence for it? it is the
same mantra dished up regularly where ever the usa is - which is just about everywhere
militarily..
Now if this were to go viral. . . . . . which of course, it wont be allowed, because of the
implications that the worlds only superpower is what some say, or shades of the "U.S. is a
paper tiger"?
The Pentagon hasn't been able to get it right since W W 2, but it has spent $$$$ like a
drunken sailor.
The truly sad fact, is that arms merchants have only one loyalty, that's to its own bottom
line. Watching the actions since Trump got elected, reminds one of watching the scrum
alongside a fishing boat when they throw buckets of chopped fish in the water, to attract
sharks to the surface. It seems his administration may end up being named Murphy instead, as
in Murphy's law fame.
Something is wrong with the North Korea story. According to the NY Times (Zerohedge Aug
14) the rocket engines the DPRK is using on their ICBMs come from a factory in the Ukraine.
The Ukraine is a U.S. client state. It seems inconceivable that the CIA would not know to
whom this factory sells its engines.
Is the U.S. trying to use the DPRK like it has tried to use ISIS in Syria - to create an
existential threat to justify a military intervention, and in the end to create another
client state to use as a base to project power, only this time in East Asia?
Maybe this is why China warned the U.S. against regime change with respect to the DPRK
(Zerohedge August 11).
@4 Upper case DH asks....."Is the U.S. trying to use the DPRK like it has tried to use ISIS
in Syria..."
I think you give the US too much credit. They have been outsmarted in Syria and they are
being outsmarted in East Asia. It's that lateral thinking thing again.
McMaster is pure bluster. Soon he will receive some high priority emails from Wal-Mart,
Dollar Tree, Apple, Samsung, Canon and other masters et al.
You know those daily essentials and critical components that are made in China, South
Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia. Empty shelves and assembly lines.
Global supply chain disrupted as the entire region is declared a War Zone with maritime
insurance suspended. Who will insure the cargo vessels transporting
daily essentials
to the ROTW?
Sick of the USA war mongering.
Kim is having a good laugh watching Act 1 of The civil war in America, 2017.
Kim is most directly threatened by the annual spring and fall joint US-South Korean military
exercises held annually (and have been for decades). The largest by far is the fall exercise,
this year's is starting next Monday: Ulchi-Freedom Guardian 2017. Several other NATO
countries and pals are involved as well. It usually runs for just under two weeks.
The exercise is a simulation of a US-ROK war with the DPRK. It's more of a command and
control exercise rather than mass troop/armor movements. Various details have been pieced
together over the years or described by various military sources. In recent years, the goal
is not to simply repel a North Korean attack, but respond by invading North Korea,
overthrowing Kim and the DPRK government and securing the country as part of South Korea.
THAT's the part that set Kim off a few years ago, and he's been pissed about it more and
more every year. The US is delighted with that fact and is unlikely to just stop holding the
exercise because it's provocative. McMaster's recent comments about a 'preventative war'
didn't do much to calm Kim down.
Both North and South go on heightened military alert - I image about now - just in case
the other one flinches. But the US military has gone overboard the last few days to assure
the world that it is not gearing up for a war in North Korea. The White House a one point
suggested the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier was heading to Korea, but that wasn't the
case. The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier is sitting in its home port in Yokosuka, Japan.
Strategic bombers, currently B-1Bs, have been stationed on Guam for years as a show of
support for regional allies.
In any kind of US war with North Korea, they have to have started it (Pearl Harbor) or
appear to have started it (Gulf of Tonkin). OPLAN 5027 takes care of it after that.
Any unprovoked war against North Korea would thereby escalate into a war with China and no
one is seriously interested in that adventure.
Well, John Bolton certainly would advocate for it. I don't know about McMaster.
He is a known Zionist (as is Mattis), so his judgement may not be too good. He is quite
alarming on the subject of Iran. I'm old enough to remember both Douglas MacArthur and Curtis
LeMay. People like them but dumber seem to be in decision-making positions in this
administration (and earlier).
US politicians seem to like phrases like "unspeakable brutality" when talking about a
targeted leader or country, yet the US has committed much brutality against the citizens of
target countries that it does not speak about.
"... Catherine Austin Fitts just published documentation of Department of Defense (DOD) official audit reports from 1998 that acknowledge "losing track" of $6.5 trillion, along with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) admission of "losing" over $100 billion. This is euphemistically termed "unaccounted," and literally means that DOD agrees they received these funds, agrees the funds are gone, and then claims to not have records of where the money went. ..."
Catherine Austin Fitts just
published documentation of Department of Defense (DOD) official audit reports from 1998 that
acknowledge "losing track" of $6.5 trillion, along with Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) admission of "losing" over $100 billion. This is euphemistically termed "unaccounted," and
literally means that DOD agrees they received these funds, agrees the funds are gone, and then claims
to not have records of where the money went.
This is the work of Dr. Mark Skidmore and graduate students; Dr. Skidmore is the Director of the
North Central Regional Center for Rural Development
at Michigan State University and Professor and Morris Chair in State and Local Gov't Finance and
Policy. Catherine was managing
director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co.
Inc., Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner for HUD in the first Bush Administration,
and president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. She has designed and closed over $25 billion of
transactions and investments to-date, and has led investment strategy for $300 billion of financial
assets and liabilities.
I wrote last year upon publication of DOD's report. Of course, such "official" looting never
happens with lawful accounting because records always show where the money goes. This would be like
your bank agreeing they received a $65,000 deposit from you, agreeing the money was gone, and not
refunding your account while claiming no further information of this "unaccountable," "lost," and
"missing" money.
The most common historical explanation of governments "losing" money is, of course, embezzlement
to enrich an oligarchy.
$6.5 trillion means how much now?
~$65,000 per US average household, based upon ~$50,000 annual income. This means if your household's
annual income is ~$100,000, your family was looted ~$130,000.
Embezzling a billion dollars from a US military project 6,500 times.
Embezzling a billion dollars of our tax money every day for 18 years (that's $10 from every
US household everyday).
"... By the end of my first year abroad, I read US newspapers differently. I could see how alienating they were to foreigners, the way articles spoke always from a position of American power, treating foreign countries as if they were America's misbehaving children. I listened to my compatriots with critical ears: the way our discussion of foreign policy had become infused since September 11 with these officious, official words, bureaucratic corporate military language: collateral damage, imminent threat, freedom, freedom, freedom. ..."
"... "It is different in the United States," I once said, not entirely realising what I was saying until the words came out. I had never been called upon to explain this. "We are told it is the greatest country on earth. The thing is, we will never reconsider that narrative the way you are doing just now, because to us, that isn't propaganda, that is truth . And to us, that isn't nationalism, it's patriotism. And the thing is, we will never question any of it because at the same time, all we are being told is how free-thinking we are, that we are free . So we don't know there is anything wrong in believing our country is the greatest on earth. The whole thing sort of convinces you that a collective consciousness in the world came to that very conclusion." ..."
Suddenly –
a decent article-confession on the pages of the "Groaning Man"
. It is important as an
opportunity to "peek" into the mindscape of the vast majority of those who, unlike the
author, remain unrepentant and even blissful supporters of the Exceptional Nation:
"We were all patriotic, but I can't even conceive of what else we could have been,
because our entire experience was domestic, interior, American. We went to church on Sundays,
until church time was usurped by soccer games. I don't remember a strong sense of civic
engagement. Instead I had the feeling that people could take things from you if you didn't
stay vigilant. Our goals remained local: homecoming queen, state champs, a scholarship to
Trenton State, barbecues in the backyard. The lone Asian kid in our class studied hard and
went to Berkeley; the Indian went to Yale. Black people never came to Wall. The world was
white, Christian; the world was us.
We did not study world maps, because international geography, as a subject, had been
phased out of many state curriculums long before . There was no sense of the US being one
country on a planet of many countries. Even the Soviet Union seemed something more like the
Death Star – flying overhead, ready to laser us to smithereens – than a country
with people in it."
[ ]
We were free – at the very least we were that. Everyone else was a chump,
because they didn't even have that obvious thing. Whatever it meant, it was the thing that we
had, and no one else did. It was our God-given gift, our superpower.
[ ]
When my best friend from Wall revealed one night that she hadn't heard of John McEnroe
or Jerry Garcia, some boys on the dormitory hall called us ignorant, and white trash, and
chastised us for not reading magazines. We were hurt, and surprised; white trash was
something we said about other people at the Jersey Shore
[ ]
I was a child of the 90s, the decade when, according to America's foremost
intellectuals, "history" had ended, the US was triumphant, the cold war won by a landslide.
The historian David Schmitz has written that, by that time, the idea that America won because
of "its values and steadfast adherence to the promotion of liberalism and democracy" was
dominating "op-ed pages, popular magazines and the bestseller lists". These ideas were the
ambient noise, the elevator music of my most formative years.
[ ]
In Turkey and elsewhere, in fact, I would feel an almost physical sensation of
intellectual and emotional discomfort, while trying to grasp a reality of which I had no
historical or cultural understanding. I would go, as a journalist, to write a story about
Turkey or Greece or Egypt or Afghanistan, and inevitably someone would tell me some part of
our shared history – theirs with America – of which I knew nothing. If I didn't
know this history, then what kind of story did I plan to tell?
My learning process abroad was threefold: I was learning about foreign countries; I
was learning about America's role in the world; and I was also slowly understanding my own
psychology, temperament and prejudices. No matter how well I knew the predatory aspects of
capitalism, I still perceived Turkey's and Greece's economic advances as progress, a kind of
maturation. No matter how deeply I understood the US's manipulation of Egypt for its own
foreign-policy aims, I had never considered – and could not grasp – how American
policies really affected the lives of individual Egyptians, beyond engendering resentment and
anti-Americanism. No matter how much I believed that no American was well-equipped for
nation-building, I thought I could see good intentions on the part of the Americans in
Afghanistan. I would never have admitted it, or thought to say it, but looking back, I know
that deep in my consciousness I thought that America was at the end of some evolutionary
spectrum of civilisation, and everyone else was trying to catch up.
American exceptionalism did not only define the US as a special nation among lesser
nations; it also demanded that all Americans believe they, too, were somehow superior to
others. How could I, as an American, understand a foreign people, when unconsciously I did
not extend the most basic faith to other people that I extended to myself? This was a
limitation that was beyond racism, beyond prejudice and beyond ignorance. This was a kind of
nationalism so insidious that I had not known to call it nationalism; this was a
self-delusion so complete that I could not see where it began and ended, could not root it
out, could not destroy it.
[ ]
The words "take that for granted" gave me pause. Having lived in Turkey for more than
a year, witnessing how nationalistic propaganda had inspired people's views of the world and
of themselves, I wondered from where the belief in our objectivity and rigour in journalism
came. Why would Americans be objective and everyone else subjective?..
American exceptionalism had declared my country unique in the world, the one truly
free and modern country, and instead of ever considering that that exceptionalism was no
different from any other country's nationalistic propaganda, I had internalised this belief.
Wasn't that indeed what successful propaganda was supposed to do? I had not questioned the
institution of American journalism outside of the standards it set for itself – which,
after all, was the only way I would discern its flaws and prejudices; instead, I accepted
those standards as the best standards any country could possibly have.
By the end of my first year abroad, I read US newspapers differently. I could see how
alienating they were to foreigners, the way articles spoke always from a position of American
power, treating foreign countries as if they were America's misbehaving children. I listened
to my compatriots with critical ears: the way our discussion of foreign policy had become
infused since September 11 with these officious, official words, bureaucratic corporate
military language: collateral damage, imminent threat, freedom, freedom, freedom.
[ ]
"It is different in the United States," I once said, not entirely realising what I was
saying until the words came out. I had never been called upon to explain this. "We are told
it is the greatest country on earth. The thing is, we will never reconsider that narrative
the way you are doing just now, because to us, that isn't propaganda, that is truth . And to
us, that isn't nationalism, it's patriotism. And the thing is, we will never question any of
it because at the same time, all we are being told is how free-thinking we are, that we are
free . So we don't know there is anything wrong in believing our country is the greatest on
earth. The whole thing sort of convinces you that a collective consciousness in the world
came to that very conclusion."
"Wow," a friend once replied. "How strange. That is a very quiet kind of fascism,
isn't it?
It was a quiet kind of fascism that would mean I would always see Turkey as beneath
the country I came from, and also that would mean I believed my uniquely benevolent country
to have uniquely benevolent intentions towards the peoples of the world."
Much of what Suzy Hansen says about Americans could apply to Australians as well. We may not
have pummelled into our brains from birth that we are the greatest or that we are
free-thinking, but a narrative about Australians as always being on the side of moral right
and decency when abroad in the world (as soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq, let's say) is ever
present, in what our news media chooses or is forced to ignore as much as what it reports.
Our history as a former British colony with British political and cultural institutions also
blinds us to how other people, particularly Aboriginal people and other people brought to
Australia as forced labour, might perceive us.
"... We see the outline of sovereign self-defense programs that take diverse forms, from the banning of foreign funding for NGOs operating in a state's territory, controlling the mass media, arresting protesters, shutting down CIA-funded political parties, curtailing foreign student exchanges, denying visas to foreign academic researchers, terminating USAID operations, to expelling US ambassadors, and so forth. In extreme cases, this includes open warfare between governments and armed rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly (as the force multiplier principle mandates) backed by US allies. ..."
"... US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity. There will be no discussion, let alone admission, that US covert intervention helped to provoke repression, and that the US knowingly placed its "force multipliers" on the front line. "Force multipliers" also requires us to understand the full depth and scope of US imperialism comprising, among other things: entertainment, food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales, media, and so on. ..."
If the present provides a hint of what it is to come, the nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest
wars to be fought this century will be between states opposed to continued US dominance,
and the force multipliers of US dominance.
We see the outline of sovereign self-defense programs that take diverse forms, from
the banning of foreign funding for NGOs operating in a state's territory, controlling the
mass media, arresting protesters, shutting down CIA-funded political parties, curtailing
foreign student exchanges, denying visas to foreign academic researchers, terminating USAID
operations, to expelling US ambassadors, and so forth. In extreme cases, this includes open
warfare between governments and armed rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly (as the
force multiplier principle mandates) backed by US allies.
US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create
the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate,
using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to
intervene in the name of humanity. There will be no discussion, let alone admission, that
US covert intervention helped to provoke repression, and that the US knowingly placed its
"force multipliers" on the front line. "Force multipliers" also requires us to understand
the full depth and scope of US imperialism comprising, among other things: entertainment,
food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales, media, and so on.
"... Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!" ..."
"... Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"? ..."
August 07, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - The American media specializes in fake news. Indeed, since the Clinton regime
the American media has produced nothing but fake news. Do you remember the illegal US bombing and
destruction of Yugoslavia? Do you remember "war criminal" Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president
branded "the butcher of the Balkans," who was compared to Hitler until Hillary passed the title on
to the President of Russia? Milosevic, not Bill Clinton, was arrested and placed on trial at the
International Criminal Tribunal. He died in prison, some say murdered, before he was cleared of charges
by the International Criminal Tribunal.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/milosevic-and-the-destruction-of-yugoslavia-unpleasant-truths-no-one-wants-to-know/5540873
Do you remember the destruction of Iraq justified by the orchestrated propaganda, known by the
criminal George W. Bush regime to be an outright lie, about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction,"
weapons that the UN arms inspectors verified did not exist? Iraq was destroyed. Millions of Iraqis
were killed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced. Saddam Hussein was subjected to a show trial more
transparent than Stalin's trial of Bukharin and then murdered under the pretext of judicial execution.
Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal
misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that
the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch
Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!"
Do you remember the lies that the criminal Obama regime told about Assad of Syria and the planned
US invasion of Syria that was blocked by the UK Parliament and the Russian government? Do you remember
that Obama and the killer bitch sent ISIS to do the job that US troops were prevented from doing?
Do you remember General Flynn revealing on TV that it was a "willful decision" of the criminal Obama
regime to send ISIS to Syria over his objection as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency? This
bit of told truth is why Gen. Flynn is hated by the Washington criminals who forced him out as Trump's
National Security Adviser.
Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its
replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy
was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"?
Can you think of any truthful report in the American news in the past two decades?
All of the lies leading to the death of millions told by the criminal Clinton, George W. Bush,
and Obama regimes were transparent. The US media could easily have exposed them and saved the lives
of millions of peoples and saved seven countries from destruction in whole or part. But the presstitutes
cheered on the gratuitous and criminal destruction of countries and peoples. Every one of the presstitutes
is a war criminal under the standards set by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg
trials.
We cannot even get a truthful jobs report. Yesterday (Aug. 4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
reported 205,000 new private sector jobs in July and a drop in the unemployment rate to 4.3%. This
is fake news.
The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber rah-rahs the fake news, adding that many economists
think "robust hiring could continue for many more months, or even years." Let's think about that
for a moment. Generally speaking economists regard full employment to be a 5% rate of unemployment.
There can never be a zero rate of unemployment because of frictions in the job market. For example,
there are people between jobs who have lost or quit a job and are looking for a new one, and there
are people who have dropped out of the work force, perhaps to spend more time parenting or to care
for an aged and ill parent, and have reentered the work force. Economists also believe that employment
cannot go too low without pushing up inflation.
Assuming economists have not suddenly changed their minds about what rate of unemployment is full
employment, if the unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, it is already below the full employment rate.
How can the rate continue to fall for years when the economy is already at full employment? Apparently,
this question did not occur to the AP reporter or to the "many economists."
"... "Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". ..."
"... For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons. ..."
"... Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. ..."
"... urbi et orbi ..."
"... Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops. ..."
"... someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please. ..."
"... The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death. ..."
"... This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo! ..."
"... anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse? ..."
"... After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon." ..."
"... I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. ..."
"... The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. ..."
"... This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks. ..."
"... We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide. ..."
"... I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else. ..."
"... Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed. ..."
"... Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. ..."
"... And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. ..."
The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response have resulted in a torrent of speculations
in the official media and the blogosphere – everybody is trying to make sense of a situation which
appears to make no sense at all. Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against
Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie
Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?! This is even more baffling
when you consider that the single biggest effect of these sanctions will be to trigger a rift, and
possibly even counter-sanctions , between the US and the EU. What is absolutely clear is that
these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting
the Russians to change anything at all in their policies. And yet, every Senator except Paul and
Sanders voted for this. Does that make any sense to you?
Let's try to figure out what is going on here.
First, a simple reminder: like all US politicians, from the county level to the US Congress, Senators
have only one consideration when then vote – "what's in it for me?". The very last thing which any
US Senator really cares about are the real life consequences of his/her vote. This means that to
achieve the kind of quasi unanimity (98%) for a totally stupid vote there was some kind of very influential
lobby which used some very forceful "arguments" to achieve such a vote. Keep in mind that the Republicans
in the Senate knew that they were voting against the wishes of their President. And yet every single
one except for Rand Paul voted for these sanctions, that should tell you something about the power
of the lobby which pushed for them. So who would have such power?
Okay, why not? We could probably rearrange them, give them different labels, add a couple (like the
"Prison Industrial Complex" or the "Intelligence Community") but all in all this is an okay list.
Any name on it jump at you yet?
One could make the case that most of these lobbies need an enemy to prosper, this is certainly
true of the Military-Industrial Complex and the associated high tech industry, and one could also
reasonably claim that Big Oil, Mining and Agribusiness see Russia has a potential competitor. But
a closer look at the interests these lobbies represent will tell you that they are mostly involved
in domestic politics and that faraway Russia, with her relatively small economy, is just not that
important to them. This is also clearly true for Big Pharma, the AARP and the NRA. Which leaves the
Israel Lobby as the only potential candidate.
"Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel
as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to
be called the "Neocon Lobby". Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby
is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests.
Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific
subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share
in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost
the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him. These are the
folks who simply use "Russia" as a propagandistic fulcrum to peddle the notion that Trump and his
entourage are basically Russian agents and Trump himself as a kind of "Presidential Manchurian Candidate".
Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven,
they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which
allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually
read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre
individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating
to the people around them. They always overplay their hand and then end up stunned and horrified
when all their conspiracies and plans come tumbling down on them.
I submit that this is exactly what is happening right now.
First, the Neocons lost the elections. For them, it was a shock and a nightmare. The "deplorables"
voted against the unambiguously clear "propaganda instructions" given to them by the media. Next,
the Neocons turned their rabid hatred against Trump and they succeeded at basically neutering him,
but only at the cost of terribly weakening the USA themselves! Think of it: 6 months plus into the
Trump administration the USA has already managed to directly threaten Iran, Syria, the DPRK and in
all cases with exactly zero results. Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda
inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for
the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo --
So while Kim Jong-un fires missiles on the 4th of July, the Syrian Army is closing in on Deir
ez-Zor, the Ukraine is turning into Somalia, the Russian economy is back to growth and Putin's popularity
is as high as ever, the Neocons are totally freaking out and, as is typical of a person losing control,
they don't do things which would make sense but do what they are used to doing: slapping sanctions
(even if they are totally ineffective) and sending messages (even if they are totally ignored). In
other words, the Neocons are now engaging in magical thinking, the deliberately chose to delude themselves
about their power and influence and they are coping with their full-spectrum failure at everything
by pretending that their votes in Congress matter. They truth is – they don't.
Here is where we need to turn to the other misconception in this matter, that the Russian reaction
to these latest sanctions is really about these sanctions. It is not.
First, let's tackle the myth that these sanctions are hurting Russia. They really don't. Even
the 100% russophobic Bloomberg is beginning to realize that, if anything, all
these sanctions have made both Putin and Russia stronger . Second, there is the issue of timing:
instead of slapping on some counter-sanctions the Russians suddenly decided to dramatically reduce
the US diplomatic personnel in Russia and confiscate a two US diplomatic facilities in a clear retaliation
for the expulsion of Russian diplomats and seizure of Russian diplomatic facilities by Obama last
year. Why now?
Many observers say that the Russians are "naive" about the West and the USA, that Putin was "hoping"
for better relations and that this hope was paralyzing him. Others say that Putin is "weak" or even
"in cahoots" with the West. This is all total nonsense.
People tend to forget that Putin was an officer in the foreign intelligence branch of the KGB,
the so-called "First Main Directorate" (PGU). Furthermore, Putin has recently revealed that he worked
in the highly secretive "Directorate S" of the PGU and he was in charge of contacts with a network
of illegal Soviet spies in East-Germany (were Putin was under the official cover of Director of the
USSR-GDR Friendship House). If the PGU was the "elite of the elite" of the KGB, and its most secretive
part, then the "Directorate S" was the "elite of the elite" of the PGU and its most secretive part.
This is most definitely not a career for "naive" or "weak" people, to put it mildly! First and foremost,
PGU officers were "specialists of the West" in general, and of the United States especially because
the USA was always officially considered as the "main enemy" (even if most PGU officers personally
considered the British as their most capable, dangerous and devious adversary). Considering the superb
level of education and training given to these officers, I would argue that the PGU officers were
amongst the best experts of the West anywhere in the world. Their survival and the survival of their
colleagues depended on their correct understanding of the western world. As for Putin personally,
he has always taken action in a very deliberate and measured way and there is no reason to assume
that this time around the latest US sanctions have suddenly resulted in some kind of emotional outburst
in the Kremlin. You can be darn sure that this latest Russian reaction is the result of very carefully
arrived to conclusion and the formulation of a very precise and long-term objective.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new
measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions. In practical terms, if Trump
wanted to lift any of these sanctions, he would have to send an official letter to Congress which
would then have 30 days to approve or reject the proposed action. In other words, the Congress has
now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage
the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system.
It also is a telling testimony to the utter depravity of the US Congress which took no such measures
when Presidents bypass Congress and started wars without the needed congressional authority, but
which is now overtly taking over the US foreign policy to prevent the risk of "peace breaking out"
between Russia and the USA.
And Trump's reaction?
He declared that he would sign the bill.
Yes, the main is willing to put his signature on the text which represents an illegal coup d'état
against this own authority and against the Constitution which he swore to uphold.
With this in mind, the Russian reaction is quite simple and understandable: they have given up
on Trump.
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump
might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic
initiated by the Neocons under Obama and maybe return the international relations to a semblance
of sanity. Alas, this did not happen, Trump turned out to be an overcooked noodle whose only real
achievement was to express his thoughts in 140 characters or less. But the one crucial, vital, thing
which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed
to achieve. Worse, his only reaction to their multi-dimensional attempts at overthrowing him were
each time met with clumsy attempts at appeasing them.
For Russia is means that President Trump has now been replaced by "President Congress".
Since it is absolutely impossible to get anything done with this Congress anyway, the Russians
will now engage in unilaterally beneficial measures such as dramatically reducing the number of US
diplomats in Russia. For the Kremlin, these sanctions are no so much an unacceptable provocation
has an ideal pretext to move on a number of Russian internal policies. Getting rid of US employees
in Russia is just a first step.
Next, Russia will use the frankly erratic behavior of the Americans to proclaim urbi et orbi
that the Americans are irresponsible, incapable of adult decision-making and basically "gone
fishing". The Russians already did that much when they declared that the Obama-Kerry team was недоговороспособны
(nedogovorosposobny: "non agreement capable", more about this concept
here ). Now with Trump signing his own constitutional demise, Tillerson unable to get UN Nikki
to shut the hell up and Mattis and McMaster fighting over delusional plans to stop "not winning"
in Afghanistan, the Obama-Kerry teams starts to look almost adult.
Frankly, for the Russians now is the time to move on.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump. I furthermore predict
that the USA will not launch any major military interventions (if only because the USA has run out
of countries it can safely and easily attack). Some "pretend interventions" (like the ill-fated missile
strike on Syria) remain, of course, quite possible and even likely. This internal slow-mo coup against
Trump will absorb the vast majority of the energy to get anything done, and leave foreign policy
as simply another byproduct of internal US politics.
The East-Europeans are now totally stuck. They will continue to haplessly observe the unfolding
Ukrainian disaster while playing at silly games pretending to be tough on Russia (the latest example
of that kind of "barking from behind a fence" can be seen in the rather pathetic
closure of the Romanian air space to a civilian aircraft with Russian Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin
amongst the passengers). The real (West) Europeans will gradually come back to their senses and begin
making deals with Russia. Even France's Emmanuel Macron de Rothschild will probably prove a more
adult partner than The Donald.
But the real action will be elsewhere – in the South, the East and the Far-East. The simple truth
is that the world cannot simply wait for the Americans to come back to their senses. There are a
lot of crucial issues which need to be urgently tackled, a lot of immense projects which need to
be worked on, and a fundamentally new and profoundly different multi-polar world which needs to be
strengthened. If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring
down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem.
Washington DC is starting to look like a kindergarten on LSD – something both funny and disgusting.
Predictably, the kids don't look too bright: a mix of bullies and spineless idiots. Some of them
have their fingers on a nuclear button, and that is outright scary. What the adults need to do now
is to figure out a way of keeping the kids busy and distracted so they don't press the damn button
by mistake. And wait. Wait for the inevitable reaction of a country which is so much more and better
than its rulers and which now desperately needs a real patriot to stop
Witches' Sabbath in
Washington DC.
I will end this column on a personal note. I just crossed the USA, literally, from the Rogue River
in Oregon to East Central Florida. During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful
sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of
their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government. I have now lived a total of 20 years in the USA and I have learned to
love and deeply appreciate the many kind, decent, honorable and simply beautiful people who live
here. Far from seeing the American people as enemies of Russia, I see them has natural allies, if
only because we have the same enemy (the Neocons in DC) and absolutely no objective reasons for conflict,
none whatsoever. Moreover, in many ways Americans and Russians are very much alike, sometimes in
comical ways. Just as during the Cold War I never lost hope in the Russian people, I now refuse to
lose hope in the American people. Yes, the US federal government is disgusting, evil, ugly, stupid,
degenerate and outright satanic, but the people of the USA are not. Far from it. I don't know if
this country can survive the current regime as one unitary USA or whether it will break up in several
quite different entities (something I see as very possible), but I do believe that the people of
the USA will survive and overcome just as the Russian people survived the horrors of the 1980s and
1990s.
[Sidebar: after being accused of being a "paid Putin agent" (Vladimir, please send me money!!),
a "Jew-lover" or even a "crypto-Jew" myself, a Nazi and Anti-Semite (which decent and good person
has not been called an Anti-Semite" at least once in his/her life), a Communist and a Muslim (or,
at least, a "Muslim propagandist"), I will now be called an "USA lover". Fine. Guilty as charged!
I do love this country very much, as I do love its people. In fact, my heart often breaks for them
and for the immense sufferings the Anglo-Zionist Empire also inflicts upon them. In the fight between
the people of the USA and the Empire I unapologetically side with the people whom I see as friends,
allies and even brothers.]
Right now the USA appears to be plunging into a precipice very similar to the one the Ukraine
has plunged into (which is unsurprising, really, the same people inflicting the same disasters on
whatever country they infect with their presence). The big difference is that immense and untapped
potential of the USA to bounce back. There might not even be a Ukraine in 10 years, but there will
most definitely be a USA, albeit maybe a very different one or even maybe several successor states.
But for the time being, I can only repeat what Floridians say when a hurricane comes barreling
down on them: "hunker down" and brace for some very difficult and dangerous times to come. (Republished
from
The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now
put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the
current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely
nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created
this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU–they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know
why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and
calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return
to?
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Americans and the US government are two different things.
That is no small part of why Trump got elected.
Antagonize Russia to what purpose?
Now we have Haley at the UN, Tillerton, and McMaster making statements at odds with Trumps
and they still have a job. Can Trump even remove them?
Who is actually in charge of the American government? Is it Trump or the Neocons?
The entire Russia hacking story is a joke and probably a setup by the Democrats if their links
to Fusion GPS is true.
Regardless, foreign nations have to deal with the world outside of Washington DC and its looks
like the lunatics have taken control of the DC asylum which may well be the case.
The problem is the lack of coherence from Washington.
We may be looking at a slow motion coup, or simple incompetence, but Trump never struck me
as incompetent in his other business dealings.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Your trolling comment is offensive
"During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who
want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal
government."
I am anything but beautiful, but everything else about that sentence describes me.
I have never been to Russia, but I have known many Russians, and I am a bit of a Russophile.
I voted for Trump partly because I was certain that Clinton would immediately plunge us into war
with Russia. It sickens me that the senate are now rattling sabres against them. I am praying
for them, and that this country is stopped from doing any real damage to them.
I can't help but wonder whether the all-but-signed alliance with the Saudis has something to
do with this. There must be something diabolical there too.
@Bragadocious You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that? So Ned took a break
for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called
it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had
more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen.
I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very
last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same.
Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell
off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want
an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition – destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY – why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now – ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment – in particular to political parties
and to the media – since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930′s, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the
Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
The neocons and their media in the U.S. and the rest of the West simply HAVE to be taken out,
one way or another. This is the only acceptable route – a knot tying the whole world up in insanity,
which must be broken.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far
as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to?
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also
points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape
from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy
seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality,
especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be
a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy.
This article is something of a mixed bag. The idea that there is going to be some rift between
the EU and US is, at best, wishful thinking, but probably closer to downright delusion. No, European
countries ceased to be subjects of history, and became objects, when they ceded their sovereignty
to the implicitly Atlanticist and supranational structure that is the EU. So they may growl and
gnash their teeth a bit, but will eventually roll over and hope that their bellies are scratched
and not slashed.
As for Trump signing the sanctions legislation as it is written, Saker's point is valid. No
president should abrogate power without a fight. He should, at the very least, insist that the
restrictions on his ability to unilaterally cancel sanctions be removed from the legislation or
he will veto the bill and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. And, he should make clear
that this isn't about sanctioning or not sanctioning Russia, but the fact that the law is unconstitutional.
Saker is also correct that the US is simply too dysfunctional now to pursue any kind of coherent
foreign policy. If I were Putin, I would ask Trump who in Congress he should be negotiating with,
since neither Trump himself, nor anyone in his cabinet, possesses the authority to follow through
with any possible agreements. The smarter commentators are actually all coming around to the same
view. Dmitry Trenin:
"I think the Kremlin views the U.S. as a dysfunctional polity, with its political class
at war with itself and its society deeply divided along cultural fault lines. Under these circumstances
one hardly expects a consistent policy Bad as they are now, U.S.-Russian relations continue
to get worse, edging ever closer to a kinetic collision between their armed forces somewhere:
in Syria, over the Baltic and Black Seas, or Ukraine."
It does indeed seem like something dramatic needs to happen, at which point the US will either
come to its senses or it's mushroom cloud time for all of us.
Although I think there is some hypobole involved, I would like to thank the Saker for raising
this very interesting and very pregnant issue:
"In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign
policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system."
This is a very disturbing development, to say the least.
However, I do disagree with the Saker on this point:
"If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down
the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem."
The "Americans" -- that is US citizens -- do NOT want to bring down the constitution, nor have
a government operate in a delusional realm. Nor does the US "government have the "right" to operate
in the way they do: that amounts to saying they have the right to commit treason ( a meaningless
concept for the Elites). Finally, it is NOT just an American "problem": unfortunately, it's a
world problem. We are all liable to suffer for the insane shenanigans of the US Ruling
class.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey – a certified swamp creature – to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot
of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base.
@NoseytheDuke So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment
was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of
the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen. Yes, the neocons took over before Trump.
Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points
out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from
the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems
to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially
with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a
good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy. Saker didn't refer to any of those things
I agree, he didn't, but then again, it seems Saker doesn't do nuance very well. He specializes
in grandiose insults (stupid, LSD, kindergartners, overcooked noodle, gone fishing) without mentioning
some pretty important stuff, like Trump cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels. That move
infuriated the neocons. Why doesn't Saker mention that? I guess it doesn't jibe with his overall
"incompetence" theme and anti-Trump snark.
As for the sanctions, they seem to upset Saker. But then he says it's water off a duck's back
for Putin. Hey, they probably even strengthen his hand -- So really, who gives a shit? He
contradicts himself.
Finally, he says Trump has turned over foreign policy responsibility to Congress. I'm no constitutional
expert, but Congress is in charge of declaring war. Sanctions can be interpreted as an act of
war. In any case, forcing the congresscritters to go on record for something like this can be
seen as very useful, just as the Iraq war vote was in blocking Hillary from higher office.
Thanks for the compliments regarding the American people. They all want peace just like all
others and have always voted for what they thought was the peace candidate only to be betrayed
later. I've lived here longer than just twenty years, however, but my whole life and am not so
sanguine about the nature of most Americans. I'd say the vast majority, perhaps 70%, are ignorant
dolts and easily bamboozled. Elections are just festivals of lies and deceit with few being able
to learn from the previous experience. The population is composed mostly of dodo birds. The ruling
class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen. This is a bad formula
and can only go so far. The fault is not in our stars but in us.
" The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen."
And who exactly is this "ruling class" if not the neocons? Are they not exactly like Milovan
Djilas' "new class" – a class of apparatchiks in positions to profit enormously (while living
very comfortably) from the decline and fall of an empire. How could this be, if their treasonous
profiteering could only leave them as having no place to turn but the China-dominated new world
order? Well, perhaps they actually know that the very millionaires who controlled key industries
in China prior to 1950, were also millionaires who lived, have lived even during the Cultural
Revolution, and for their families, continue to live, very comfortably and securely in Shanghai
from 1950 onward – assuming that they were astute enough to have been doing business with the
Communists all along. Perhaps they realize that the Communists are about as communistic as the
National Socialists were socialistic so that course which is most profitable in the short-run
is also most profitable in the long run.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact
that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part
and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day)
of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev,
Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back
at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white.
A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and
move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of
50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
http://robertmagill.wordpress.com The production facilities of the future will be automated
and the elimination of workers will mean there is no particular reason to continue offshoring
production. The factories will come back to the West, but the jobs won't exist .
@exiled off mainstreet Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate
to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war. Great picture -- just not congruent with the
title of the post. With a moniker like that, EoM, one might think you'd notice the size of that
girl's pupils. Not on LSD. Ill bet she had already graduated from kindergarten, too. But then,
why be critical of what one sees and reads. I take SAKER's input with a salt shaker on hand.
@Grandpa Charlie I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall"
1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there
all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was
willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years.
(If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition - destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY - why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now - ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment - in particular to political parties
and to the media - since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930's, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid ... but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely,
the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
"Yet none dare call it treason." Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
@utu Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
And obviously Putin is a superman
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are.
@Bragadocious Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I see that you've outed yourself as a Coincidence Theorist there so you may console yourself as
at least being "useful", even if it is only as being a useful idiot.
Start with ae911truth.org, grap a book on high-school physics and go on from there. There's
plenty of reading and learning ahead for you, but you'll be much better for it. Oh, and stop the
chest-thumping, it only results in bruises.
@Chuck Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national
"Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection." – Chuck, citing to The Hill
As always, a good read from the Saker.
I think his assessment is spot on; Trump and his movement have been disabled. Now Congress members
seem to be jockeying for future power-gains, while Trump might be starting to check out.
He'll keep tweeting or whatever, but Nikki Haley, Pence and the generals might end up grabbing
more decision-making power or perhaps not.. who knows.
There's always the 25th amendment scenario, the Russian collusion angle, or maybe some other
damning revelation to pop up in the future to sink Trump, but I think many in Washington may be
under warning that his removal could have a devastating impact.
I am not as optimistic about a lack of militarism in response to the crisis. That has been
the go-to option for all modern American presidents in times of crisis.
The worms in the House and Senate have been totally terrorized by the vile jooies. Give the
loathsome jooies whatever they want, no matter how foul, and keep their jobs or cross the abominable
jooies and lose their jobs when a well funded opponent supported by the repulsive KM (kosher media)
just happens to appear in the next primary. The Jooie Lobby runs the Knesset on the Potomac, not
the US citizenry who are held in the utmost contempt by the bloodthirsty jooie elites. Government
of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies .
Many events are sprouting up all over the map
India China, Taliban in Afghanistan ,Venezuela , Iran Syria Lebanon , Israel Palestine -- all are
moving rapidly into unknown territory . America is no longer is in a position to influence these
events. . despite not wanting American policy makers will be forced to look inwards . Those counytriesmay
nt bother to inform America .
Health Care, Student loans, next inevitable housing bubble, millennial not saving and being
forced to spend the income on health care and rents along , nation as a whole see increasing social
fragmentation on ethnic lines -- these forces will make America much weaker economically and socially
. Foreign countries like China and Gulf monarchies will influence American foreign and domestic
policies .
America democracy itself may not survive the changes . Neocons with eager media may settle
down on dictatorship.
"The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response"
There has not been any response so far. Response was to US expelling 35 Russian diplomats 6+
months ago. This is why I am not a fan of delayed responses. As saying goes, spoon is for dinner,
not afterwards. Russia so far failed to respond to USA aggression which is what sanctions are.
Putin has been doing this whole patience expectations of US coming to her senses for some 10 years
with poor results as US belligerence seems to grow in lack of appropriate responses from Russia.
Putin being liberal he is, seems cannot abandon hope to be part of the club so far hence this
treatment in white gloves when it is stick across US face and kick into US groin what's necessary.
USA is like a dog that understands only stick. And stick has been missing despite Russia having
enough options to start really hurting USA where it hurts and stop cooperation everywhere even
in Syria.
I am not holding my breath with Putin though. He still insists on not letting up and talking to
madman despite that doing everything to hurt him.
Slow learner he is both in regards to USA and Russian economy.
"What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and
I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as
US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists - which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents
more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being
manipulated by lobbyists via the media.
Yet, that has never happened, and will never happen. People elect leaders quite like themselves.
It is the people, stupid (I don't necessarily mean you).
The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst
in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go
on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be
a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying
will be done over there in their estimation.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby
in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true.
And one of the things I've learned is to NOT seek a reasonable answer to situations provoked
by utter crackpots.
It's simple; many of those in positions of power and responsibility are not only nuts in the
head, but no human is built to shoulder much power at all.
Of the lobby groups listed, probably only Big Oil and Big Jew (and not in that order) have
much of an interest in going to war with Russia. The Military-Industrials are happy just to get
contracts to build stuff. They don't really care, or particularly want, their stuff to be used.
Most of it is too expensive to use, and probably doesn't work as advertised, anyhow.
But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity.
Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain
the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation .. Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that?
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey - a certified swamp creature - to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of
Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base. "Russian nukes are the
only thing standing in the way of One World Government."
Indeed. Vladimir Putin has big balls, and the elites hate him. But he's not afraid of a murder
attempt. The elites know that if something happens to him, Europe, Israel and North America would
be reduced to radioactive debris in about one hour
A new alignment is likely to emerge .t will be much less adversarial and much less enthused
with polemic. America China Israel Saudi Arab – pitted against – India Russia Iran Japan, . China
will embrace US because of Neocon and myriad financial connections with US .India will be forced
to return to Russia . China joining America or America deciding to join China is the game changer
and disrupt very other relationship. China will try to occupy American position after WW2 while
US will find itself occupying post WW2 British position. Neoconservatives and financial system
of the world will force this merger .
Pakistan Germany Turkey will try to juggle and hedge theirs bets . Central Asian Stan will
be politically connected to Russia but economically to China .China and Russia will quarrel here
and these countries will face a period of turmoil. Balkans will move back to Russia . NATO will
be largely irrelevant with no ability to have consensus and a mission .
The world will become more rambunctious and hyper verbal but it won't fight .
Polyglot countries like India and America will try to talk along ethnic lines more but the fundamental
underlying realities will not change . Despite the divisiveness promoted by parties, the citizen
will move to closer relationship and understanding and common ground partly because the divisiveness
will fail to accrue any benefit to the groups most interested in harvesting it .But the divisiveness
will not disappear from daily discourse .
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are. ;) Everything is a stroke of genius.
Like playing 3D or nD (n–>inf) chess, right?
I think it come from desperation and hope, I think. And as they say, hope does not want to
die in spite of the evidence that it should long time ago.
@The Alarmist The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the
risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough,
so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's
ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the
wars and dying will be done over there ... in their estimation. " Neocons seem to think kicking
Russia's ass will be a manageable high"
That's what they think. Given that Russia currently has more nuclear power than USA and Israel
combined, to think that they can handle Russia is sheer stupidity.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be.
We need a better term than "neo-con." People like Brennan, Clapper and McMaster were never
Trotskyites and they never wrote for Commentary. Their view is really a liberal internationalism
update for the post-Cold War, post-9/11 situation. And this view is ubiquitous inside the Beltway.
Saker,
I especially liked your use of the term "demonic" which is an appropriate term both figuratively
and possibly literally to describe many neocon adherents.
The internet is providing "Light coming into the world", that is, Truth or information coming
into mass consciousness. Mass consciousness must shape which possible futures become reality,
or the controlled media wouldn't be spending billions to try to influence it. Some would say that
this is solely because of the physical changes that people then force to happen, but evidence
also supports consciousness simply altering possible outcomes "The prayers of a righteous man
availeth much".
Saker, thanks much for Your articles!
Abstinence from all injustice to other first-rate powers is a greater tower of strength
than anything that can be gained by the sacrifice of permanent tranquillity for an apparent
temporary advantage.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.42-[3]
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more
of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse
Not always, and not necessarily now. Sometimes no response is the most powerful. Aggressive and ruthless responses are often best
reserved for the times they're likely to succeed decisively. Responding to petulant pissants is more often than not a waste of time, energy and concentration. Putin appears to know all that, and good for him. I 'd love to see him knock the bastards on
their collective asses permanently. Sometime.
Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond. Russia had quite satisfactorily surfed sanctions.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please.
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America
or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on
that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting – with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars – but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
You are making too big a deal about the 30 day repeal. I bet you Trump will include a signing
statement that he reserves the right to ignore the parts of the law that are unconstitutional.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing
to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed
nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
@schmenz I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby
has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask
the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has
nothing to do with Israel.
This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the
interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd
and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo!
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Thus, the "American" (please note the
quotation marks) oligarchy is imploding. Hopefully, they will not exercise a Samson Option of
their own, but anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy
is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse?
After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes
as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should
be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still
believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional
parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman,
"To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon."
Trump should have just let the veto proof sanctions become law without his signature.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in
the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ... but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true. Agree!
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined
up for that stupidity. Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means
of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation..... Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that? That kind of overwhelming support in the Senate is usually reserved for Israel.
The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and
the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the
artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity
to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having
strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives
on Capitol Hill.
Germany, absent Merkel, can resurrect the reinsurance treaty with Russia which Kaiser Wilhelm
II abrogated much to the frustration and disapproval of Bismarck, the pilot of German unification.
What followed was a precarious geopolitical divide in Europe which led to the WWI with its disastrous
consequences for Germany, followed by the ordeal of the Versailles Treaty and ultimately the breakout
of WWII.
By putting the energy gun to the head of the Europeans, the American legislature will force
the Europeans to rethink and revamp their self defeating policies towards Russia that are done
at the behest of the USA. Any rapprochement with Russia will seal the fate of Eurasia as an integrated
economic bloc with the New Silk Road at its backbone.
As for the United States internal politics, it is obvious that the neocons are pushing matters
to a head with Trump whose only resort is to knit a special relationship with those leaders of
the military establishment who do not fancy the dominance of the deep state under the leadership
of the CIA The neocons move to impeach the president should create the kind of unrest that should
spur the military to take action against the corruption of the legislative branch and its extension
in the neocons media complex.
Yet this very much desired scenario that could a boon for world peace hinges on the emergence
of a new leadership in the western world that is willing to defy the powers that be. Currently
Europe is woefully lacking in the quality of leadership that can seize the moment to break free
from the dominance of the neocons.
This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats'
rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard
blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia,
so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters
were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks.
Trump did not veto the the bill because of the veto proof majority, but will effectively veto
the bill by ignoring it. I don't see any Federal Court issuing orders to enforce this bill, and
can ignore that too. It's like Congress declaring a war the President doesn't want to fight. Who
is gonna make him?
"Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done
absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single
US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?!"
There is no satisfactory "worldly" explanation for what's happening here, but there is an explanation.
The Jew-controlled "U.S. government" apparently hates Russia for the same reason that Cain
hated (and eventually murdered) Abel. To put it another way, "bad" (evil) hates "good" because if there were no such thing as "good",
then there would be no such thing as "bad" by comparison. The Russian government demonstrates respect for international law, mutual cooperation, diplomacy,
stability, restraint, etc., while the U.S. government simply trashes everything, including America.
The Jews HATE a good example, and Russian re-emergence onto the world scene as an example of
relative goodness, in stark contrast to U.S. evil, is simply too much for them to bear.
"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination
to the wicked" (Proverbs 29:27).
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for
an eye response. Than aggression stops.
I second what 'jaques sheete' said. I just want to add that we could be on the verge of a major
break between Washington and the EU -- something Putin has been working towards for years. We have
an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington
is doing now: committing suicide.
During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being
and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government.
I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking
on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt
representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't
seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else.
Even more depressing than the bill is Trump's craven capitulation:
In a signing statement released by the White House, Trump said the legislation "included
a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" in lawmakers' "haste" to pass it.
"While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior
by Iran, North Korea and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed," he said
Trump, however, said in another statement accompanying the bill that he would not allow
the U.S. to "tolerate interference in our democratic process and that we will side with our
allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization."
So Trump now officially regards his own election as illegitimate? As the result of Russian
"subversion and destabilization"? Incredible! I realize he can't stop the bill; but that doesn't mean he has to officially sign it.
@yeah Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus
America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or .... the list is long. No adventure
on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of
death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting - with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars - but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force
intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out.
This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that
better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent 'asymmetric warfare'
activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional
war or hybrid warfare. [...] The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees
of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted
states (e.g. NATO, EU). [...] And all this plays to the Russian military's own strengths –
its 'own relative advantages'. While it might lack 'quantitative indicators' – the tanks, aircraft
and ships – it does have a massive capacity to gather information, to disseminate (mis)information
and to employ considerable cyber abilities
Too backward to frack, Russia tried to bribe the tech from Exxon with massive access to
Russia untapped resources to show them how. I would really like someone to tell me why Russia
should be rewarded by transfer of crucial US technology for what it did in Ukraine. Were they
expecting a pat on the back? Russia will it not start a conventional or nuclear war unless it
thinks there is a chance of it winning, and there isn't.
They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the
other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project. No because Jordan not Syria is just across
the river from the occupied territories' Palestinian population. Syria has little or no bearing
on the West Bank Arab problem, which is the main one for Israel
Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The
Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it
fed.
The remaining relatively-cheap oil is all in Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and The UAE.
Everybody understands this. The Russians, the Chinese, the Neocons, Donald Trump. They all get
this.
The United States is for all intents-and-purposes energy independent when you include supplies
from Canada and rapidly-dwindling supplies from Mexico. But the United States relies on "control"
of the oil coming from the Persian Gulf to maintain control of its Empire and as tenuous control
over its real one and only rival – China.
South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are completely dependent for survival economically on energy
that comes from the Middle-East and is protected by the U.S. Navy.
The constant tension between Israel and Saudi Arabia (The two worst regimes in the world) on
the one side and Iran on the other is necessary to give the American Deep State and Empire purpose.
While it 'appears' that all the American military equipment and bases and meddling in the Middle
East are aimed at surrounding and blunting Iran's power – it should be obvious from 75-plus years
of history that the real purpose is to surround Saudi Arabia.
Whether it is Roosevelt meeting with the King in 1945 on the way back from Yalta or Trump meeting
with the King a month ago – the message is clear – The heads belonging to the House of Sand are
only attached to their necks at the discretion of the United States.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be. Agree.
The only difference, at this stage of expansion, is that the lower classes do not get the spoils
of the expansion.
If they did .well .it would be interesting to see how much they'd be against The Empire.
And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard.
Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. What a conundrum ..
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte
as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in
building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had
originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the
neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be
president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted
her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's
America First worldview."
Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate
for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very
top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries
across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies
of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the
highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.
Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he
had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however,
he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign
policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve
Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This
is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
.his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign
policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."
But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could
not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private
comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains)
to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not
with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.
But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never
left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared
to move.
Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex
Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons
just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's
policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have
been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any
other people.
Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading
Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their
support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized
the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic
threat to America.
Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would
stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus
particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and
promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.
But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president
has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign
policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted
by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other
words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two
of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of
war and peace.
Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good
standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in
close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the
anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign,
and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine.
A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long,
pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of
his positions and you see you disagree on every one."
One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior
adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.
Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide
Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly
made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how
senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the
brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.
According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists,
from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker,
executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president
of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations,
Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.
Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative,
has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself
for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether
ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.
Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She
was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite
the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part
of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never
Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided
editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.
Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with
the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy.
Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's
national security strategy.
How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration?
And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America
First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign
policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.
Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not
prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state,
tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb.
He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal
arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced
in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor
an open ended, unresolved war.
Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson
at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose
foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go
way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she
endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .
As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more
in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:
"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves.
But that's – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."
"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and
its what we do."
"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a
part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over
the peninsula to Ukraine."
One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says
it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the
Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people
of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since
1776?
Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United
States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation
with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism?
Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with
the President?
On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's
reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little
wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her
book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The
current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing
following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the
schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking
really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't
have the dignity and stature to be president."
American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will
of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots
and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very
raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige,
power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in.
Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting
the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.
This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power.
Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede
in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will
return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base
in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the
needless carnage.
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and
Generals, Copperhead.
This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing
all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back
in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find
the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp
every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel
for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself.
And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking
to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney
network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into
power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because
of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate
schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists
not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who
didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist
beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a)
you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives
had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others
not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible
with the American interventions you oppose.
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker.
Doesn't matter which.
The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by
the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have
done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it
to do.
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter
futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American
people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year.
And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's
political career.
The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing.
We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.
Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging
us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can
be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies
into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy
knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for
neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.
Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working.
We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
??
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off
method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that
he doesn't
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative
Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:
"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making
American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful.
Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree
on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate
in the foreign policy establishment.
You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers
close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why
does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards
taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.
And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs
system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say,
"Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to
change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think
Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?
Where is a Trumpian
counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary
and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the
NSC staffers.
I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who
are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign
policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that
will change.
Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect
for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we
face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in
the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."
We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration
who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne
said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are
hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big
Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.
A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security
expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt
to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast
boilerplate is over."
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed
their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one
enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew]
next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every
nuance of what is said and unsaid?
When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go
back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.
Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America
Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help
America."
"... The Bay of Pigs is the "poster child" for American operational failure, and the CIA's Office of the Inspector General put the blame squarely on what it described as "arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence" within the CIA ..."
"... But it was national security adviser Henry Kissinger who ordered the operation and explained that he couldn't "see why the United States should stand by and let Chile go communist merely due to the stupidity of its own people." ..."
"... Putin's intervention in Syria in 2015 was designed in part to make sure that the U.S. history of regime change didn't included another chapter in the Middle East. ..."
"... Before former U.S. officials such as Tom Malinowski decide to lambaste Putin for cynicism and treachery, it would be a good idea to become familiar with U.S. crimes and calumny. Forty years ago, former senator Frank Church said the United States "must never adopt the tactics of the enemy. Each time we do so, each time the means we use are wrong; our inner strength, the strength that makes us free, is lessened." Malinowski should ponder William Faulkner's admonition about the land of his birth: "The past is never dead. It's not even past." ..."
Like too many
nations, the United States likes to think of itself as a chosen nation and a chosen people.
Presidential inauguration statements are typically an exercise in proclaiming American
exceptionalism, and this mentality has far too much influence in the United States. It's
particularly regrettable when individuals who should no better indulge the kind of hubris and
triumphalism associated with American exceptionalism.
An excellent example of our exceptionalism appeared in Sunday's Washington Post in the form
of an op-ed by Tom Malinowski, the former assistant secretary of state for democracy, human
rights and labor in the Obama administration. In a fatuous display of ignorance, Malinowski
lambasted Russian President Vladimir Putin for stating that the United States frequently
meddles in the politics and elections of other countries. Malinowski argued that it is Russia
that interferes in democratic elections, such as the U.S. presidential race in 2016, but that
the United States consistently "promotes democracy in other countries."
One of the reasons why the United States has so little credibility in making the case
against Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election is the sordid record of the
White House and the Central Intelligence Agency in conducting regime change and even political
assassination to influence political conditions around the world. In 1953, the United States
and Great Britain conspired to overthrow the democratically elected government of Mohammed
Mossadegh in Iran; the following year, the Eisenhower administration backed a coup in Guatemala
that led to the introduction of Central America's most brutal regime in history. Similarly,
Eisenhower's willingness to pursue the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo led to the
installation of the worst tyrant in the history of Africa, Sese Seku Mobutu.
The Bay of Pigs is the "poster child" for American operational failure, and the CIA's Office
of the Inspector General put the blame squarely on what it described as "arrogance, ignorance,
and incompetence" within the CIA
Ten years later, however, another American administration and
the CIA tried to prevent the election of Salvador Allende, a leftist, as president of Chile.
After Allende's election, the CIA moved to subvert his government. CIA director Richard Helms
was given a two-year suspended prison sentence for lying to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee about the operation in Chile.
But it was national security adviser Henry Kissinger
who ordered the operation and explained that he couldn't "see why the United States should
stand by and let Chile go communist merely due to the stupidity of its own people."
The revelation of assassination plots in Cuba, the Congo, the Dominican Republic, and
Vietnam finally led to a ban on CIA political assassination in the mid-1970s. Nevertheless,
when Libyan leader Muammar Qadafi was killed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton boasted that
"we came, we saw, he died." In an incredible turn of events, the United States invaded Iraq to
overthrow Saddam Hussein, although it was a CIA-sponsored coup against Colonel Abdul Kassem
that led to the emergence of Saddam Hussein in the first place.
Vladimir Putin is certainly aware of CIA intervention of behalf of the Solidarity movement
in Poland to destabilize the communist government there in the early 1980s; to bolster the
regime of former president Eduard Shevardnadze in the Republic of Georgia in the 1990s; and
more recently to undermine the regime of former president Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine.
Putin's intervention in Syria in 2015 was designed in part to make sure that the U.S.
history of regime change didn't included another chapter in the Middle East.
Before former U.S. officials such as Tom Malinowski decide to lambaste Putin for cynicism
and treachery, it would be a good idea to become familiar with U.S. crimes and calumny. Forty
years ago, former senator Frank Church said the United States "must never adopt the tactics of
the enemy. Each time we do so, each time the means we use are wrong; our inner strength, the
strength that makes us free, is lessened." Malinowski should ponder William Faulkner's
admonition about the land of his birth: "The past is never dead. It's not even past."
Strictly on the record, US & Allies are a Global Menace who became wealthy by
cannibalising rest of humanity to the tune of Millions murdered and more millions maimed and
made homeless.
Putin is a tough man who has intelligence and empathy where US is devoid of conscience.
The core philosophy underlying a nation's raison d'être matters: Individualism, greed
is good, self before community---- Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" is a good start for
insights here. And the pendulum has swung to an extreme where the necons and the one percent
rule with an accompanying dramatic rise in inequality not seen in decades.
This corrosive
philosophy needs to be unwound so that the pendulum reverts back to a more 'acceptable',
realistically feasible median.
OJS@81 - Re: India/China - Interesting in its own right. But ever since the U.S. MSM started weighing in with their spin, I
had to tune out. I'm under constant assault by full-spectrum MSM insanity in the Middle East at the moment, and nobody cares about
what the U.S. thinks about a Indian-Chinese border dispute.
Peter AU 1@92 Re: Iran short-range point defense - They have a couple of dozen old TOR-M1s and BUK clones, but nothing like
Pantsirs. Since their overall network is not terribly integrated (as far as anyone knows), the older short-range equipment is
of limited value. Iran relies on a kind of long-range point defense strategy along with a long-range border ring.
somebody@93 - Re Mattis "...His optimism that the American Way is the solution is quite funny." His heart is in the
right place. I would simply prefer him in his old job as Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, rather than U.S. Secretary of Defense.
Quadriad@96 - "...I can't believe that someone as astute as you are is now spilling this defeatist garbage..." The war
with Iran will not be decided by simple weapon superiority (or lack thereof). Iran will lose its entire air defenses in the first
two weeks of an all-our war, and the U.S. will bail out before either side 'wins'.
Nuff Sed@98 - The U.S. spends $600 billion a year on the military and imports less than 12% of our oil from the Persian Gulf.
Since when has the U.S. ever cared about the sacrifices of the 'little people' when pursuing its imperialistic goals? Do you think
big oil interests in Washington would cry much about $200/bbl oil?
"...During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the
military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games..."
Well, we'll have to disagree on that on. The U.S. war on Iran started a couple of decades ago - we just haven't made it to
Iran itself yet. I think the 'loose ends' are just about all tied up by now.
V. Arnold@100 - Our vast technical superiority in weapons has proved worthless in the longest war in U.S. history: Afghanistan.
We're very good at blowing things up, that's it. If the war is about anything else, then we're usually in trouble.
You wouldn't know it, based on the endless cries for more money coming from the
military
politicians , and
the president , but these are the best of times for the Pentagon. Spending on the Department
of Defense alone is already well in excess of half a trillion dollars a year and counting. Adjusted
for inflation, that means it's
higher
than at the height of President Ronald Reagan's massive buildup of the 1980s and is now nearing
the post-World War II funding peak. And yet that's barely half the story. There are hundreds of billions
of dollars in "defense" spending that aren't even counted in the Pentagon budget.
Under the circumstances, laying all this out in grisly detail!and believe me, when you dive into
the figures, they couldn't be grislier!is the only way to offer a better sense of the true costs
of our wars past, present, and future, and of the funding that is the lifeblood of the national security
state. When you do that, you end up with no less than 10 categories of national security spending
(only one of which is the Pentagon budget). So steel yourself for a tour of our nation's trillion-dollar-plus
"national security" budget. Given the Pentagon's penchant for wasting money and our government's
record of engaging in dangerously misguided wars without end, it's clear that a large portion of
this massive investment of taxpayer dollars isn't making anyone any safer.
1) The Pentagon Budget
The Pentagon's "base" or regular budget contains the costs of the peacetime training, arming,
and operation of the U.S. military and of the massive civilian workforce that supports it!and if
waste is your Eden, then you're in paradise.
The department's budget is awash in waste, as you might expect from the only major federal agency
that has
never passed an audit . For example, last year a
report by the Defense Business Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, found that the Department of
Defense could save $125 billion over five years just by trimming excess bureaucracy. And a new
study by the Pentagon's Inspector General indicates that the department has ignored hundreds
of recommendations that could have saved it more than $33.6 billion.
The Pentagon can't even get an accurate count of the number of private contractors it employs,
but the
figure is certainly in the range of 600,000 or higher, and many of them carry out tasks that
might far better be handled by government employees. Cutting that enormous contractor work force
by just 15 percent, only a start when it comes to eliminating the unnecessary duplication involved
in hiring government employees and private contractors to do the same work, would
save an easy $20 billion annually.
And the items mentioned so far are only the most obvious examples of misguided expenditures at
the Department of Defense. Even larger savings could be realized by scaling back the Pentagon's global
ambitions, which have caused nothing but trouble in the last decade and a half as the U.S. military
has waged devastating and counterproductive wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere across
the Greater Middle East and Africa. An analysis by Ben Friedman of the conservative Cato Institute
estimates that the Pentagon could
reduce its projected spending by one trillion dollars over the next decade if Washington
reined in its interventionist instincts and focused only on America's core interests.
Donald Trump, of course, ran for president as a businessman who would clean house and institute
unprecedented efficiencies in government. Instead, on entering the Oval Office, he's done a superb
job of ignoring chronic problems at the Pentagon,
proposing instead to give that department a hefty raise: $575 billion next year. And yet his
expansive military funding plans look relatively mild compared to the desires of the gung-ho members
of the armed services committees in the
House and
Senate . Democrats and Republicans alike want to hike the Pentagon budget to at least $600 billion
or more. The legislative fight over a final number will play out over the rest of this year. For
now, let's just use Trump's number as a placeholder.
Pentagon Budget: $575 billion
2) The War Budget
The wars of this century, from Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond, have largely been paid for through
a special account that lies outside the regular Pentagon budget. This war budget!known in the antiseptic
language of the Pentagon as the "Overseas Contingency Operations" account, or OCO!
peaked at more than $180
billion at the height of the Bush administration's intervention in Iraq.
As troop numbers in that country and Afghanistan have plummeted from
hundreds of thousands to
about 15,000 , the war budget, miraculously enough, hasn't fallen at anywhere near the same pace.
That's because it's not even subject to the modest
caps on the Pentagon's regular
budget imposed by Congress back in 2011, as part of a deal to keep the government open.
In reality, over the past five years, the war budget has become a slush fund that pays for tens
of billions of dollars in Pentagon expenses that have nothing to do with fighting wars. The Trump
administration wants
$64.6 billion for that boondoggle budget in fiscal year 2018. Some in Congress would like to
hike it another
$10 billion . For consistency, we'll again use the Trump number as a baseline.
War Budget: $64.6 Billion
Running Total: $639.6 Billion
3) Nuclear Warheads (and more)
You might think that the most powerful weapons in the U.S. arsenal -- nuclear warheads -- would
be paid for out of the Pentagon budget. And you would, of course, be wrong. The cost of researching,
developing, maintaining, and
"modernizing"
the American arsenal of
6,800 nuclear
warheads falls to an obscure agency located inside the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear
Security Administration, or NNSA. It also works on naval nuclear reactors, pays for the environmental
cleanup of nuclear weapons facilities, and funds the nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories,
at a total annual cost of more than
$20 billion per year.
Department of Energy (nuclear): $20 Billion
Running total: $659.6 billion
4) "Other Defense"
This catchall category encompasses a number of flows of defense-related funding that go to agencies
other than the Pentagon. It totals about
$8 billion per year . In recent years, about
two-thirds of this money has gone to pay for the homeland security activities of the FBI, accounting
for more than half of that agency's annual budget.
"Other Defense": $8 Billion
Running Total: $677.6 billion
The four categories above make up what the White House budget office considers total spending
on "national defense." But I'm sure you won't be shocked to learn that their cumulative $677.6 billion
represents far from the full story. So let's keep right on going.
5) Homeland Security
After the 9/11 attacks, Congress created a mega-agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
It absorbed 22 then-existing entities ,
all involved in internal security and border protection, creating the sprawling cabinet department
that now has 240,000 employees . For
those of you keeping score at home, the agencies and other entities currently
under the umbrella
of DHS include the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, the Transportation Security Agency, the
U.S. Secret Service, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), and the Office of Intelligence
Analysis (the only one of America's 17 intelligence agencies to fit under the department's rubric).
How many of these agencies actually make us safer? That would be a debatable topic, if anyone
were actually interested in such a debate. ICE!America's deportation force!has, for instance, done
far more to
cause suffering than to protect us from criminals or terrorists. On the other hand, it's reassuring
to know that there is an office charged with determining whether there is a nuclear weapon or radioactive
"dirty bomb" in our midst.
While it's hard to outdo the Pentagon, DHS has its own record of
dubious expenditures on items large and small. They range from $1,000 fees for employees to attend
conferences at spas to the purchase of bagpipes for border protection personnel to the payment of
scores of remarkably fat salaries to agency bureaucrats. On the occasion of its tenth anniversary
in 2013, Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
excoriated the department as "rife with waste," among other things, pointing to a report by the
DHS inspector general that it had misspent over $1 billion.
DHS was supposed to provide a better focus for efforts to protect the United States from internal
threats. Its biggest problem, though, may be that it has become a magnet for increased funding for
haphazard, misplaced, and often simply dangerous initiatives. These would, for instance, include
its program
to supply grants to local law enforcement agencies to help them buy military-grade equipment
to be
deployed
not against terrorists, but against citizens protesting the injustices perpetrated by the very
same agencies being armed by DHS.
The Trump administration has
proposed spending
$50 billion on DHS in FY 2018.
Homeland Security: $50 Billion
Running Total: $717.6 Billion
6) Military Aid
U.S. government-run military aid programs have proliferated rapidly in this century. The United
States now has
scores of arms and training programs serving more than
140 countries
. They cost more than
$18 billion per year , with
about 40
percent of that total located in the State Department's budget. While the Pentagon's share has
already been accounted for, the $7 billion at State!which can ill afford to pay for such programs
with the Trump administration seeking to
gut the rest of its budget!has not.
Military Aid at the State Department: $7 Billion
Running Total: $724.6 Billion
7) Intelligence
The United States government has
16 separate intelligence agencies : the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the National Security
Agency (NSA); the Defense Intelligence Agency; the FBI; the State Department Bureau of Intelligence
and Research; the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence Analysis; the Drug Enforcement
Administration Office of National Security Intelligence; the Treasury Department Office of Intelligence
and Analysis; the Department of Energy Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; the National
Reconnaissance Office; the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency; Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance; Army Military Intelligence; the Office of Naval Intelligence; Marine Corps Intelligence;
and Coast Guard Intelligence. Add to these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI),
which is supposed to coordinate this far-flung intelligence network, and you have a grand total of
17 agencies.
The U.S. will spend more than $70 billion
on intelligence this year, spread across all these agencies. The bulk of this funding is contained
in the Pentagon budget!including the budgets of the CIA and the NSA (believed to be hidden under
obscure line items there). At most, a few billion dollars in additional expenditures on intelligence
fall outside the Pentagon budget and since, given the secrecy involved, that figure can't be determined,
let's not add anything further to our running tally.
Intelligence: $70 Billion (mostly contained inside the Pentagon budget)
Running Total: $724.6 Billion
8) Supporting Veterans
A steady uptick of veterans generated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has dramatically increased
the costs of supporting such vets once they come home, including the war wounded, some of whom will
need medical care for life. For 2018, the Veterans Administration has requested over
$186 billion for its budget, more than
three
times what it was before the 2001 intervention in Afghanistan.
Veterans: $186 billion
Running Total: $910.6 Billion
9) Military Retirement
The trust fund set up to cover pensions for military retirees and their survivors doesn't have
enough money to pay out all the benefits promised to these individuals. As a result, it is supplemented
annually by an appropriation from the general revenues of the government. That supplement has by
now reached roughly
$80 billion per year
Military Retirement: $80 Billion
Running Total: $990.6 Billion
10) Defense Share of Interest on the Debt
It's no secret that the U.S. government regularly runs at a deficit and that the total national
debt is growing. It may be more surprising to learn that the interest on that debt runs at roughly
$500 billion per year . The Project on Government Oversight
calculates the share of the interest on that debt generated by defense-related programs at more
than $100 billion annually.
Defense Share of the Interest on the Debt: $100 billion
Grand Total: $1.09 Trillion
That final annual tally of nearly $1.1 trillion to pay for past wars, fund current wars, and prepare
for possible future conflicts is roughly double the already staggering $575 billion the Trump administration
has proposed as the Pentagon's regular budget for 2018. Most taxpayers have no idea that more than
a trillion dollars a year is going to what's still called "defense," but these days might equally
be called national in security.
So the next time you hear the president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, or a hawkish lawmaker claim that the U.S. military is practically collapsing from a lack
of funding, don't believe it for a second. Donald Trump may finally have put plutocracy in the Oval
Office, but a militarized version of it has long been ensconced in the Pentagon and the rest of the
national security state. In government terms, make no mistake about it, the Pentagon & Co. are the
one percent.
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] ..."
"... Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it. ..."
"... Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair. ..."
"... Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well. ..."
"... Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. ..."
"... I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity -- ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time. ..."
"... Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor. ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
"... It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ? ..."
"... It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ? ..."
"... It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ? ..."
"... Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ? ..."
"... Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him. ..."
"... Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb ..."
"... I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness. ..."
A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling
his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy,
but an open, loud attack on the election.
The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to
the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to
the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.
The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional
and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives,
mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.
The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that
the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential
political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and
legitimacy.
The Coup as 'Process'
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in
Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife'
for these 'regime changes'.
Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted
through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies
in Congress and the Judiciary.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part
of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American
coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking
office in January.
While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within
a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.
Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to
take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump
of
being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against
his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their
ballot for Secretary Clinton.
The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green
Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass
media.
In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national
Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives
and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This
dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's
victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to
stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several
thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill
Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass
media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and
not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast
media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any
facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American
Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.
Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia,
the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like
Jill Stein.
The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question
Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention:
The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties,
and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they
all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative
warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and
social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation
of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival
'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia
and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry'
Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.
ORDER IT NOW
The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud".
As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on
the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election
– essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused
to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.
President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy
and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and
place of our choosing".
Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the
jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian
Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo –
and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.
Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance
Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress.
He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three
retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the
highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been
key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them
with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.
Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported
the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his
cabinet who had their own allied business associations.
One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL,
George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This
was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as
Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced
with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect
named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security
and intelligence positions.
The Coup: Can it succeed?
In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation'
on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the
very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already
oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch
effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic
well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations
with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque
policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election
and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with
his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among
the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires
his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic
agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed
to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger
of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.
If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly
lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies,
but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').
He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters
among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election
to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire',
not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.
A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power.
But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but
the whole system?
If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing
globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump
campaign was a failure.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over
the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama
for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he
loves his wife and kids?
Replies:
@Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been
announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context,
in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind
bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20
may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things
by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage,
his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who
are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of
the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). ,
@animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is
to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's
show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not
one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the
US" trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that
the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush
the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance
of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction
to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy"
is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?
Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more
optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about
my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign
promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup
is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to
stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several
thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire
hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's
position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate
their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill
Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche
of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian
hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for
the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running
since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then.
Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors'
will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The
CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing
to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and
the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure
(it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will
not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite
of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support
is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked
the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble
with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead
choosing to assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen
Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn
Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely
that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community
difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to
undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled
the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed
after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists'
and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon,
while the Pentagon is a bit less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level:
it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying
to us about Russia.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping
[?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary
to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such
as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers
.such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the
elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria
is a member in good standing of the UN.
Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press
hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR.
[That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything
that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing
laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent
such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an
officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day.
It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III,
smouldering as we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has
been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?]
of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such
as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such
as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected
government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member
in good standing of the UN.
Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press
hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That
could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that
is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing
laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such
things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!
It needs to be published as a feature story.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering
as we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been
sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
• Replies:
@El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads
all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten
some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking
anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official
US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding
them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead forever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak
out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political
arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his
shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly
equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their
machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office
and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will
require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons
are convinced that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of
action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump
has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return
sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend),
and outplay him at his own game. ,
@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's
recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to
the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the
real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look
at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among
leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and
Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would
necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population.
This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get
a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel
and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora
left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe
and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater
good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's
support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big
deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities
available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do
the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a
doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project
like Israel off the ground and maintained.
How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same
scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew
with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether
he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work
in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere
and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is
"just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded
ISIS directly.
The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although
Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will
now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.
You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped
the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade
buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.
(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and
forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.
You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country
or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate
reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression
of you?
This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject
matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or
do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary
and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo
loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent
Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
• Replies:
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of
the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among
the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when
the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal
aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in
the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on
the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor -
is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US
big time.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and
the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and
the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering
activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained
an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity
(subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise
"through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired
to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,'
'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed
in state or federal court.[6]
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups
The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic.
In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need"
for a coup.
If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will
just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course
be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally
white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an
officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day.
It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III,
smouldering as we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has
been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way
up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.
Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.
Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)
It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream
media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year
2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video
Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of
the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama
for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he
loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been
announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context,
in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind
bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20
may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things
by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage,
his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who
are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of
the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama
for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he
loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's
show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not
one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US"
trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the
neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush
the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop
Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several
thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire
hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's
position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate
their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass
media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers'
and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the
term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running
since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then.
Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors'
will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The
CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing
to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and
the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure
(it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will
not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite
of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support
is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked
the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble
with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead
choosing to assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen
Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn
Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely
that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community
difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying
to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons
controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA
This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining
'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally
neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level:
it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying
to us about Russia.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking
anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official
US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them?
No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak
out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political
arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula
@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long
before Dr Stein's recount circuses.
They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.
Nothing else they try will fly.
Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of
Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and
the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and
the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering
activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained
an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity
(subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise
"through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired
to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,'
'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed
in state or federal court.[6]
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called
"elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders"
in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy,
does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home
and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never
been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic
and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US
have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy,
does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections,
honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the
sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do? ,
@Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would
hang.
I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ
as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .
The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President,
John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the
cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's
brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon,
and many others, followed.
Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.
Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us.
There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a
psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the
Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect,
our Honor.
I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic
below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish
it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial
aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the
last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government.
All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin
Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy,
left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian
civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.
In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class,
by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare
subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers
$13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard
working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability.
Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion
. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top
1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The
interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings,
as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures,
and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain
700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest
of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent
on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared
by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as
with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates
a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured.
The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic
and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash
the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress,
is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the
Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional
Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing
accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous
debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student
Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.
As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and
in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the
1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth
would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful
government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of
speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means
economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free
people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal
politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian
governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of
the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among
the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when
the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal
aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in
the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on
the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor -
is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US
big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the
US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy,
does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections,
honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the
sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do?
• Replies:
@Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.
My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer
etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining
while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda
and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?
The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before
any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing
business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?
As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.
Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:
My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the
new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts
and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and
2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased
by 13%.
At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.
If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI
are probably split the same way.
The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees
joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial
projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.
Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their
employers.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky
political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped
to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and
can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require
massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced
that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action.
Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has
to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity
and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and
outplay him at his own game.
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to
Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most
power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America
and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things
up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we
are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot
Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing
to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to
the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf
War I. RIP.
Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying
to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on
grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt"
you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement
with Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine
disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details
pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that
they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there
is , before Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK
have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad
their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador
to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the
most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America
and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Peace --- Art
"If we get past the inauguration ."
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things
up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we
are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot
Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to
put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the
late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War
I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told
about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all
along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real
reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the
Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists
and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli
Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily
result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO
being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right
of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results
in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok
with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to
break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism,
a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli
nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal
if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available
for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing,
unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer
or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off
the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater
good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse
for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money
he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to
try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and
indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.
• Replies:
@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the
soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That
was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace
treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high
ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing
but world public opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically
and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel
of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their
brains for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis,
big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't
think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb ,
@RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug
the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any
facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN,
BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special
situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will
once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military
will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent
stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real
reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the
Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists
and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli
Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily
result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO
being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right
of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results
in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok
with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to
break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism,
a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli
nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal
if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available
for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing,
unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer
or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off
the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater
good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse
for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money
he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to
try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and
indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms
on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace
treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground
to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but
world public opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically
and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel
of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their
brains for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis,
big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't
think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but
Joe Webb
• Replies:
@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians
think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That
feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What
it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one
that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully
on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not
to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and
supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did
lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the
Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented
any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was
breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC,
ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special
situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will
once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military
will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers.
Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role
of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at
Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what
was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first
of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian
diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling
the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on
apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies –
the hordes of fanatical jihadis.
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things
up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we
are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot
Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing
to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to
the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf
War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
Hi RobinG,
This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told
about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all
along!
The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really – how pissed off can they be?
Peace - Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in
the hacking is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their
affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced
the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public
a peek inside the Democrat machine.
Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough!
This shall not stand!
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told
about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all
along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
Hi Art,
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in
the hacking is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled
coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his
demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via
their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his
demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing
behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of
the Democratic campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to
hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta
p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information
contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory
or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules,
TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic
Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp
.
@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons
and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US
administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the
role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue
at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this
is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary
first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what
Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling
the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on
apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies -
the hordes of fanatical jihadis.
@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the
soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That
was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace
treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high
ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing
but world public opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically
and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel
of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their
brains for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis,
big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't
think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will
result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel
can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully
on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not
to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and
supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did
lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the
Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
• Replies:
@Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing
for them. ,
@joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around
the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of
course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the
Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A
Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like
anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state
of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the
injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed
somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the
whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear
to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and
so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our
National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ
is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish
Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too
much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by
anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians
have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using
your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they
are, just like the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only
way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish
order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic
Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb,
just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth,
both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic
system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them
for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more
than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing
behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of
the Democratic campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to
hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta
p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information
contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory
or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules,
TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic
Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members
of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:
Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker
https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ ,
@alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow
today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats
of the American people over the last sixteen years...
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct
an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing
to discuss or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the
campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination
,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY
Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption
machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision
to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well
as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange,
too, to hedge his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak,
although he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite
close to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful
of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels)
for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life
ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose
the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its
place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions
and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to
"sully American Democracy"
.
But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?
"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. "
The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it
has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."
A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries'
report cards.
@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent
stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national
globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real
reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the
Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists
and discredit the entire left-wing project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC.
It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli
Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily
result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO
being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel.
Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right
of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results
in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok
with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to
break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism,
a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli
nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal
if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available
for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing,
unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer
or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off
the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater
good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?
The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora
Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the
coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and
indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash."
Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians,
while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just
more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in
the hacking is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their
affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled
coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya,
his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has
finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at
least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will
require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar
political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment?
It's beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've
got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to
make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting
a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove
it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is
accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And
Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly
US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry
did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face
of Israeli pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated
(and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands
this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage
his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars".
It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is
fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent,
nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will
go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of
America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded
ISIS directly.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country,
on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across
the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement
with Moscow. What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine
disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does
anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff.....like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that
they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut
every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something
"else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes
to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous
brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians
think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen.
That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return.
What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel,
one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are
fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding
not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem
and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They
did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around
the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of
the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today
.combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the
American people over the last sixteen years
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct
an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing
to discuss or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the
campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination
,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY
Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption
machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to
take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well
as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too,
to hedge his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak,
although he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite
close to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful
of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels)
for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life
ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose
the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its
place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions
and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully
American Democracy" .
@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians
think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That
feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What
it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one
that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully
on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not
to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and
supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did
lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the
Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of
course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the
Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A
Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like
anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state
of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the
injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed
somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the
whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear
to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and
so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our
National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ
is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish
Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too
much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by
anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians
have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using
your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they
are, just like the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only
way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish
order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic
Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb,
just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth,
both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic
system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them
for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more
than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb
Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first
string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying
to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the
people that voted for him.
January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.
Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were
critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the
first atomic bomb.
I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions
to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.
"... One of my neighbors has this to say about McCain: "I worked for American Continental. So I know what kind of a crook he is!" Said neighbor is also of the "McCain was a traitor while in North Vietnamese custody!" school. ..."
"... As to your neighbor's opinion of McCain as a collaborator, this post from Ron Unz of the Unz Review is rather eye-opening . ..."
"... McCain comes back from getting health care to help make sure others don't get health care. That's nice. ..."
"... One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what happened to him. ..."
"... It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in 2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term. ..."
Don't underestimate how personally piqued McCain is over President Obama, taking McCain's turn,
when it comes time for a vote. McCain is a nasty man. Now that Herr Trump beat Hillary, even McCain
might have done it.
Which only proves that McCain truly is an idiot, or doesn't expect to live for another two
or so years. Having a signature 'achievement' fail outright to be far more embarrassing than repealing
it and having your version of healthcare, whatever it is, fail as badly or worse than ACA would,
Especially since delusional folk will still think we would be in the best shape ever if only the
big bad Republicans hadn't repealed Barack Obama's health reform plan. There is no such glittery
unicorn if ACA continues and dies of its own weight.
(I should note that for those us not under the media induced delusion of McCain as mavericky
upstanding moral leader McCain being a vindicative idiot is very old news.)
One of my neighbors has this to say about McCain: "I worked for American Continental. So
I know what kind of a crook he is!" Said neighbor is also of the "McCain was a traitor while in
North Vietnamese custody!" school.
I noticed that irony too, I don't see how anybody in the public would NOT notice that irony,
since it is a well known fact that congress gets their own health care guaranteed.
Maybe if they have brain cancer they wouldn't notice . oh.
One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough
to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what happened
to him.
It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection
until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in
2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term.
And he keeps getting weak opponents on the D side of the ballot. In 2016, it was Ann Kirkpatrick.
To this day, I can't figure out why she was so compelling to the Arizona Democratic Party establishment.
Oh, in 2010, you're gonna love this: Rodney Glassman. Guy didn't even complete a single term on
the Tucson City Council, but he thinks he can go up against one of the best-known names in American
politics. Epic fail.
But but but it makes Trump supporters so very happy, whether they are losing their health
care or not.
McCain very clearly demonstrated who he is and who he actually works for when he chose Tundra
Trash as his running mate.
The end.
Don't underestimate how personally piqued McCain is over President Obama, taking McCain's
turn, when it comes time for a vote. McCain is a nasty man. Now that Herr Trump beat Hillary,
even McCain might have done it.
Which only proves that McCain truly is an idiot, or doesn't expect to live for another two
or so years. Having a signature 'achievement' fail outright to be far more embarrassing than
repealing it and having your version of healthcare, whatever it is, fail as badly or worse
than ACA would, Especially since delusional folk will still think we would be in the best
shape ever if only the big bad Republicans hadn't repealed Barack Obama's health reform plan.
There is no such glittery unicorn if ACA continues and dies of its own weight.
(I should note that for those us not under the media induced delusion of McCain as
mavericky upstanding moral leader McCain being a vindicative idiot is very old news.)
I noticed that irony too, I don't see how anybody in the public would NOT notice that
irony, since it is a well known fact that congress gets their own health care guaranteed.
Maybe if they have brain cancer they wouldn't notice . oh.
One would have though McCain's incessant pounding on the war drums would have been enough
to turn people off. I can't understand how he is so eager to send people off to repeat what
happened to him.
It probably doesn't matter whether Arizonans notice or not. McCain isn't up for reelection
until 2022, so even if he survives longer than the average person with his type of cancer, in
2022 he'll still probably be dead or too weak to campaign for another term.
And he keeps getting weak opponents on the D side of the ballot.
In 2016, it was Ann Kirkpatrick. To this day, I can't figure out why she was so compelling
to the Arizona Democratic Party establishment.
Oh, in 2010, you're gonna love this: Rodney Glassman. Guy didn't even complete a single
term on the Tucson City Council, but he thinks he can go up against one of the best-known
names in American politics. Epic fail.
"... McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades. ..."
"... I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection. ..."
That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John
McCain, lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand.
McCain is psychologically tortured
by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in
Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.
I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his
daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous
behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical
'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient
for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil
connection.
All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign
lines.
John McCain waked on Trump ouster more then any other Republican senator. Despite the fact
that Trump campaigned for his reelection. He might be the the one who ordered British dossier on
Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose increase he opposes. ..."
"... McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb everyone and start WW III. ..."
We cannot allow this great website to be stained with a tribute to one of the worst
Americans in our history. Allow me to disparage Mr. McCain (again), with facts. By several
accounts ("The Nightingale's Song", for example) he only got into the Naval Academy for a
free college degree because Dad and GrandDad were Admirals, and should have been kicked out
several times if not for that too. He was a lousy pilot who got into trouble often and
crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot down on his 23rd mission over Vietnam,
and getting captured is not heroic.
What happened over there is difficult to pin down, but upon returning from POW status, he
passed a physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of
service that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating
allowing him to collect some $36,000 a year, tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when
McCain was insisting he was fit to serve as commander in Chief. He now hauls in over $240,000
a year from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement,
while all the while working full-time in the US Senate. So is he retired, or disabled, or
gainfully employed? He is all three! This is textbook case of abuse and why or system needs
reform to protect workers against rich welfare kings like McCain.
McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon after
he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so
angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got
divorced, so there's that bigamy thing.
I don't know why any Arizonian votes for this crazed man, especially since he's a big
advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because
Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain has never labored
his entire life, always on the government dole now earning ten times minimum wage worker pay,
whose increase he opposes.
McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health care his entire life, yet thinks
it's nothing commoners deserve. While running for president and attacking the poor, a rare
good reporter asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe seven.
His Senate career began as he profited off the savings and loan scandal (providing cover
for fraudster Keating).
McCain became a a warmongering neocon, always anxious to bomb
everyone and start WW III.
Despite his recent illness , he was quick to denounce Trump when
he ended American support for mass terrorism in Syria.
John McCain supported the slaughter of millions of people on Earth, with the loss of
thousands of American lives, and a trillion dollars wasted on pointless military adventures.
How can any decent person mourn his demise?
"... Notice how quiet Lindsay Graham has been the last couple of weeks. ..."
"... Don't forget that Diane Feinstein, McCain's Democrat doppleganger is retiring in 2018. Harry
Reid and Barbara Boxer are gone. The generation of U.S. legislators that brought us this madness are
being put out to pasture. Nancy Pelosi is in trouble as House Minority Leader. ..."
"... The fact is, that Senate rules as they stand with McCain, Graham, Corker and Rubio, require
a two-thirds majority (including filibuster-proofing) to get anything fundamentally changed. There's
still a lot of work to do, but the worst of the opposition to Trump and the people's desire to roll
back our insane foreign policy is behind us, not in front of us. ..."
"... Make no mistake, the neocons will attempt to regroup. Arizona Governor Don Ducey is now the
most important person in the U.S. as he will be the one to appoint McCain's replacement when that time
comes. They will drag this out for as long as possible, holding McCain's seat open to continue stalling
Trump's reform agenda. But both of these moves are rearguard actions rather than part of a counter-attack.
..."
"... like Old Shoe in the movie Wag the Dog, for one last kick at the anti-Russia can to enact legislation
there is no coming back from. The hagiography of McCain began the moment the information was released.
Everyone virtue-signaling their tails off to look sympathetic. But, the reality is most are scared of
what happens next. ..."
"... Once McCain is officially done, appointing people just as bad as McCain to his influential
seats on the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations Committee will become the U.S. Deep State's top priority.
The problem is, however, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is now terminally wounded over
his mishandling of Obamacare. So, McConnell will have little control over the process. He's looking
back at what happened to John Boehner and seeing his future. McConnell tried to salvage his leadership
with an Obamacare full repeal vote that failed. The Blame in Ukraine Falls Mainly on McCain. But, for
right now, Trump has an opportunity to ignore the full-court Russia-gate press being put on by his opposition
to make substantive foreign policy moves that don't involve antagonizing Russia. He can start in Ukraine.
It's time for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to open up talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov over Ukraine. Now that Zakharchenko in Donetsk has given everyone a way to implement a real solution
to McCain's mess without having to look like they backed down over Minsk II and easing Russian sanctions.
..."
"... Merkel can save face by throwing Poroshenko under the bus and admitting Malorussia is a viable
alternative to Minsk. Because with McCain gone, the EU now owns the mess in Ukraine because Trump is
not interested in funding it any further. ..."
With him gone the driving force is gone as well. Many who stood with McCain on these issues did
so because Washington is the ultimate 'go along to get along' kind of place. And few, if any, in
the Senate have his drive to continue the work. Notice how quiet Lindsay Graham has been the
last couple of weeks.
Many will see the writing on the wall and kiss the ring of President Trump to avoid a primary
challenge in the spring.
And some will see this as a great opportunity to retire now that the status quo has shifted.
Don't forget that Diane Feinstein, McCain's Democrat doppleganger is retiring in 2018. Harry
Reid and Barbara Boxer are gone. The generation of U.S. legislators that brought us this madness
are being put out to pasture. Nancy Pelosi is in trouble as House Minority Leader.
Do you really think many Democrats and RINOs have the will to fight now that their GOP Trojan
Horse is on chemo?
The fact is, that Senate rules as they stand with McCain, Graham, Corker and Rubio, require
a two-thirds majority (including filibuster-proofing) to get anything fundamentally changed. There's
still a lot of work to do, but the worst of the opposition to Trump and the people's desire to roll
back our insane foreign policy is behind us, not in front of us.
He's a McCainiac!
Make no mistake, the neocons will attempt to regroup. Arizona Governor Don Ducey is now the
most important person in the U.S. as he will be the one to appoint McCain's replacement when that
time comes. They will drag this out for as long as possible, holding McCain's seat open to continue
stalling Trump's reform agenda. But both of these moves are rearguard actions rather than part of
a counter-attack.
My biggest fear is that they drag him out, wheelchair-bound, like Old Shoe in the movie Wag
the Dog, for one last kick at the anti-Russia can to enact legislation there is no coming back from.
The hagiography of McCain began the moment the information was released. Everyone virtue-signaling
their tails off to look sympathetic. But, the reality is most are scared of what happens next.
Once McCain is officially done, appointing people just as bad as McCain to his influential seats
on the Armed Forces and Foreign Relations Committee will become the U.S. Deep State's top priority.
The problem is, however, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is now terminally wounded
over his mishandling of Obamacare. So, McConnell will have little control over the process. He's
looking back at what happened to John Boehner and seeing his future. McConnell tried to salvage his
leadership with an Obamacare full repeal vote that failed.
The Blame in Ukraine Falls Mainly on McCain. But, for right now, Trump has an opportunity to ignore
the full-court Russia-gate press being put on by his opposition to make substantive foreign policy
moves that don't involve antagonizing Russia.
He can start in Ukraine. It's time for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to open up talks with
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over Ukraine. Now that Zakharchenko in Donetsk has given everyone
a way to implement a real solution to McCain's mess without having to look like they backed down
over Minsk II and easing Russian sanctions.
Merkel can save face by throwing Poroshenko under the bus and admitting Malorussia is a viable
alternative to Minsk. Because with McCain gone, the EU now owns the mess in Ukraine because Trump
is not interested in funding it any further.
And that is John McCain's biggest legacy, one where ideology was more important than discussion.
He stifled U.S. diplomacy to such a degree in recent years that it pushed us to the brink of war
with nuclear-armed superpowers.
People do see soldiers from enhanced Forward Presence, our British and French allies.
They also see the Baltic Air Police Mission airplanes flying over their heads on exercise or
scrambling to look at the
planes which are violating our airspace
-- Kersti
Kaljulaid, President of Estonia.
Facing the NATO death or glory in the name of freedom and democracy boys (and girls, don't
forget), the largest contingent of which being 1,000 US personnel, including ice-cream and
soda fountain artificers first class, is this:
Western Military District
Western Military District (WEST) was established in September 2010 in accordance with the
presidential decree of 20 September 2010 on the basis of two military regions – Moscow
and Leningrad. The structure also includes WEST Northern and Baltic Fleets and the 1st Air
Force and Air Defence Command
As part of the troops WEST are units and formations totaling over
400 thousand
soldiers, representing about 40% of the total population of the Armed Forces.
WEST
subordinate to the commander of all deployed in the district military formations of species
and genera of the RF Armed Forces, with the exception of the Strategic Missile Forces and the
Forces Aerospace Defence. In addition, the operational control of its military forces are the
Interior Ministry, the FSB Border Troops, as well as part of the MOE and other ministries and
departments, performing tasks within the county.
"... This should be the definition of victory as defeat, success as disaster. It's also a pattern. It's been the essential story of the American war on terror since, in the month after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush loosed American air power on Afghanistan. That first air campaign began what has increasingly come to look like the full-scale rubblization of significant parts of the Greater Middle East. ..."
"... In some ways, much of the rubblization of the Greater Middle East in recent years could be thought of as, however unconsciously, a campaign of vengeance for the horror and insult of the air assaults on that September morning in 2001, which pulverized the tallest towers of my hometown. Ever since, American war has, in a sense, involved paying Osama bin Laden back in kind, but on a staggering scale. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, a shocking but passing moment for Americans has become everyday life for whole populations and innocents have died in numbers that would add up to so many World Trade Centers piled atop each other. ..."
"... In early October 2011, the Bush administration unleashed its air power on Afghanistan, a campaign that, in a sense, would never end but simply spread across the Greater Middle East. (By now, the U.S. has launched repeated air strikes in at least seven countries in the region.) At that moment, someone emailed me an article by Tamim Ansary, an Afghan who had been in the U.S. for years but had continued to follow events in his country of birth. ..."
"... His piece, which appeared at the website Counterpunch ..."
"... In this country, there is essentially no sense of responsibility for the spread of terrorism, the crumbling of states, the destruction of lives and livelihoods, the tidal flow of refugees , and the rubblization of some of the planet's great cities. There's no reasonable assessment of the true nature and effects of American warfare abroad: its imprecision, its idiocy, its destructiveness. In this peaceful land, it's hard to imagine the true impact of the imprecision of war, American-style. Given the way things are going, it's easy enough, however, to imagine the scenario of Tamim Ansari writ large in the Trump years and those to follow: Americans continuing to bomb the rubble they had such a hand in creating across the Greater Middle East. ..."
You remember. It was supposed to be
twenty-first-century war, American-style: precise beyond imagining; smart
bombs; drones capable of taking out a carefully identified and tracked human
being just about anywhere on Earth; special operations raids so
pinpoint-accurate that they would represent a triumph of modern military
science. Everything "networked." It was to be a glorious dream of limited
destruction combined with unlimited power and success. In reality, it would
prove to be a nightmare of the first order.
If you want a single word to summarize
American war-making in this last decade and a half, I would suggest rubble.
It's been a painfully apt term since September 11, 2001. In addition, to catch
the essence of such war in this century, two new words might be useful:
rubblize and rubblization. Let me explain what I mean.
In recent weeks, another major city in Iraq
has officially been "
liberated
"
(
almost
)
from the militants of the Islamic State. However, the results of the
U.S.-backed Iraqi military campaign to retake Mosul, that country's second
largest city, don't fit any ordinary definition of triumph or victory. It began
in October 2016 and, at nine months and counting, has been
longer than
the World War II battle of Stalingrad. Week after week, in
street to street fighting, with
U.S. airstrikes
repeatedly called in on neighborhoods still filled with
terrified Mosulites, unknown but
potentially staggering
numbers of civilians have died.
More than a million
people , yes, you read that figure correctly , were
uprooted from their homes and major portions of the Western half of the city
they fled, including its ancient historic sections, have been turned into
rubble
.
This should be the definition of victory as
defeat, success as disaster. It's also a pattern. It's been the essential story
of the American war on terror since, in the month after the 9/11 attacks,
President George W. Bush loosed American air power on Afghanistan. That first
air campaign began what has increasingly come to look like the full-scale
rubblization of significant parts of the Greater Middle East.
By not simply going after the crew who
committed those attacks but deciding to take down the Taliban, occupy
Afghanistan, and in 2003, invade Iraq, Bush's administration opened the
proverbial can of worms in that vast region. An imperial urge to overthrow
Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein, who had once been Washington's
guy
in the Middle East only to become its mortal enemy (and who had nothing
whatsoever to do with 9/11), proved one of the fatal miscalculations of the
imperial era.
So, too, did the deeply
engrained fantasy
of Bush administration officials that they controlled a
high-tech, precision military that could project power in ways no other nation
on the planet or in history ever had; a military that would be, in the
president's words
, "the greatest force for human liberation the world has
ever known." With Iraq occupied and garrisoned (
Korea-style
)
for generations to come, his top officials assumed that they would take down
fundamentalist Iran (sound familiar?) and other hostile regimes in the region,
creating a
Pax Americana
there. (Hence, the particular irony of the
present
Iranian ascendancy
in Iraq.) In the pursuit of such fantasies of global
power, the Bush administration, in effect, punched a devastating hole in the
oil heartlands of the Middle East. In the
pungent imagery
of Abu Mussa, head of the Arab League at the time, the U.S.
chose to drive straight through "the gates of hell."
Rubblizing the Greater Middle East
In the 15-plus years since 9/11, parts of an
expanding swathe of the planet , from Pakistan's borderlands in South Asia to
Libya in North Africa , were catastrophically unsettled. Tiny groups of Islamic
terrorists multiplied exponentially into both local and transnational
organizations, spreading across the region with the help of American
"precision" warfare and the anger it stirred among helpless civilian
populations. States began to totter or
fail
. Countries essentially collapsed, loosing a
tide of refugees
on the world, as year after year, the U.S. military, its
Special Operations forces
, and the CIA were increasingly deployed in one
fashion or another in one country after another.
Though in case after case the results were
visibly disastrous, like so many addicts, the three post-9/11 administrations
in Washington seemed incapable of drawing the obvious conclusions and instead
continued to do
more of the same
(with modest adjustments of one sort of another). The
results, unsurprisingly enough, were similarly disappointing or disastrous.
Despite the doubts about such a form of
global warfare that candidate Trump raised during the 2016 election campaign,
the process has only escalated in the first months of his presidency.
Washington, it seems, just can't help itself in its drive to pursue this
version of war in all its grim imprecision to its increasingly imprecise but
predictably destructive conclusions. Worse yet, if the leading military and
political figures in Washington have their way, none of this may end in our
lifetime. (In recent years, for example, the Pentagon and those who channel its
thoughts have begun speaking of a "
generational
approach
" or a "
generational
struggle
" in Afghanistan.)
If anything, so many years after it was
launched, the war on terror shows every sign of continuing to expand and rubble
is increasingly the name of the game. Here's a very partial tally sheet on the
subject:
In addition to Mosul, a number of Iraq's
other major cities and towns , including
Ramadi
and
Fallujah
, have also been reduced to rubble. Across the border in Syria,
where a brutal civil war has been raging for six years, numerous cities and
towns from
Homs
to parts of
Aleppo
have essentially been destroyed. Raqqa, the "capital" of the
self-proclaimed Islamic State, is now under siege. (American Special Operations
forces are already
reportedly active
inside its breached walls, working with allied Kurdish
and Syrian rebel forces.) It, too, will be "liberated" sooner or later , that
is to say, destroyed.
As in Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi, American
planes have been striking ISIS positions in the urban heart of Raqqa and
killing civilians
, evidently in sizeable numbers, while rubblizing parts of
the city. And such activities have in recent years only been spreading. In
distant Libya, for instance, the city of
Sirte
is in ruins after a similar struggle involving local forces, American
air power, and ISIS militants. In Yemen, for the last two years the Saudis have
been conducting a never-ending air campaign (with
American support
), significantly aimed at the civilian population; they
have, that is, been rubblizing that country, while paving the way for a
devastating famine
and a horrific
cholera epidemic
that can't be checked, given the condition of that
impoverished, embattled land.
Only recently, this sort of destruction has
spread for the first time beyond the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa.
In late May, on the island of Mindanao in the southern Philippines, local
Muslim rebels
identified with ISIS
took Marawi City. Since they moved in, much of its
population of 200,000 has been displaced and almost two months later they
still hold
parts of the city, while engaged in Mosul-style urban warfare
with the Filipino military (
backed
by
U.S. Special Operations advisers). In the process, the area has
reportedly suffered
Mosul-style rubblization.
In most of these rubblized cities and the
regions around them, even when "victory" is declared, worse yet is in sight. In
Iraq, for instance, with the "caliphate" of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi now being
dismantled, ISIS remains a
genuinely threatening
guerilla force, the Sunni and Shiite communities
(including armed Shiite militias) show little sign of coming together, and in
the north of the country the Kurds are
threatening
to declare an independent state. So fighting of various sorts
is essentially guaranteed and the
possibility
of Iraq turning into a full-scale failed state or several
devastated mini-states remains all too real, even as the Trump administration
is reportedly
pushing
Congress for permission to construct and occupy new "temporary"
military bases and other facilities in the country (and in neighboring Syria).
Worse yet, across the Greater Middle East,
"reconstruction" is basically
not even a concept
. There's simply no money for it. Oil prices remain
deeply
depressed
and, from Libya and Yemen to Iraq and Syria, countries are either
too poor or too divided to begin the reconstruction of much of anything. Nor ,
and this is a given , will Donald Trump's America be launching the
war-on-terror equivalent of a Marshall Plan for the region. And even if it did,
the record of the post-9/11 years already shows that the highly militarized
American version of "reconstruction" or "nation building" via crony
warrior corporations
in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been one of the
great scams
of our time. (More American taxpayer dollars have been poured
into reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan alone than went into
the whole
of the Marshall Plan and it's painfully obvious how effective
that proved to be.)
Of course, as in Syria's civil war,
Washington is hardly responsible for all the destruction in the region. ISIS
itself has been a remarkably destructive and brutal killing machine with its
own
impressive record
of urban rubblization. And yet most of the destruction in
the region was triggered, at least, by the militarized dreams and plans of the
Bush administration, by its response to 9/11 (which ended up being something
like Osama bin Laden's
dream scenario
). Don't forget that ISIS's predecessor, al-Qaeda in Iraq,
was a creature of the American invasion and occupation of that country and that
ISIS itself was
essentially formed
in an American military prison camp in that country
where its future caliph was confined.
mini-surge
of troops and air power in Afghanistan;
deployed
for the first time the largest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal
there; promised the Saudis more support in their war in Yemen; has
increased
its air strikes and special operations activities in Somalia; is
preparing
for a new U.S. military presence in Libya; increased U.S. forces
and
eased the rules
for air strikes in civilian areas of Iraq and elsewhere;
and sent U.S. special operators and other personnel in rising numbers into both
Iraq and Syria.
No matter the president, the ante only seems
to go up when it comes to the "war on terror," a war of imprecision that has
helped
uproot
record numbers of people on this planet, with the usual predictable
results: the further spread of terror groups, the further destabilization of
state structures, rising numbers of displaced and dead civilians, and the
rubblization of expanding parts of the planet.
While no one would deny the destructive
potential of great imperial powers historically, the American empire of
destruction may be unique. At the height of its military strength in these
years, it has been utterly incapable of translating that power advantage into
anything but rubblization.
Living in the Rubble, a Short History
of the Twenty-First Century
Let me speak personally here, since I live in
the remarkably protected and peaceful heart of that empire of destruction and
in the very city where it all began. What eternally puzzles me is the inability
of those who run that imperial machinery to absorb what's actually happened
since 9/11 and draw any reasonable conclusions from it. After all, so much of
what I've been describing seems, at this point, dismally predictable.
If anything, the "generational" nature of the
war on terror and the way it became a permanent war
of
terror should
by now seem too obvious for discussion. And yet, whatever he said on the
campaign trail, President Trump promptly appointed to key positions the
very generals
who have long been immersed in fighting America's wars across
the Greater Middle East and are clearly ready to do more of the same. Why in
the world anyone, even those generals, should imagine that such an approach
could result in anything more "successful" is beyond me.
In many ways, rubblization has been at the
heart of this whole process, starting with the 9/11 moment. After all, the very
point of those attacks was to turn the symbols of American power , the Pentagon
(military power); the World Trade Center (financial power); and the Capitol or
some other Washington edifice (political power, as the hijacked plane that
crashed
in a field in Pennsylvania was undoubtedly heading there) , into so
much rubble. In the process, thousands of innocent civilians were slaughtered.
In some ways, much of the rubblization of the
Greater Middle East in recent years could be thought of as, however
unconsciously, a campaign of vengeance for the horror and insult of the air
assaults on that September morning in 2001, which pulverized the tallest towers
of my hometown. Ever since, American war has, in a sense, involved paying Osama
bin Laden back in kind, but on a staggering scale. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and
elsewhere, a shocking but passing moment for Americans has become everyday life
for whole populations and innocents have died in numbers that would add up to
so many World Trade Centers piled atop each other.
The origins of
TomDispatch
, the
website I run, also lie in the rubble. I was in New York City on that day. I
experienced the shock of the attacks and the smell of those burning buildings.
A friend of mine saw a hijacked plane hitting one of the towers and another
biked into the smoke-filled area looking for his daughter. I went down to the
site of the attacks with my own daughter within days and wandered the nearby
streets, catching glimpses of those giant shards of destroyed buildings.
In the phrase of that moment, in the wake of
9/11, everything "changed" and, in a sense, indeed it did. I felt it. Who
didn't? I noted the sense of fear rising nationally and the repetitious
ceremonies across the country in which Americans hailed themselves as the
planet's most exceptional victims, survivors, and (in the future) victors. In
those post-9/11 weeks, I became increasingly aware of how a growing sense of
shock and a desire for vengeance among the populace was freeing Bush
administration officials (who had for years
been dreaming
about making the "lone superpower" omnipotent in a
historically unprecedented way) to act more or less as they wished.
As for myself, I was overcome by a sense that
the period to follow would be the worst of my life, far worse than the Vietnam
era (the last time I had been truly mobilized politically). And of one thing I
was certain: things would not go well. I had an urge to do something, though no
idea what.
In early October 2011, the Bush
administration unleashed its air power on Afghanistan, a campaign that, in a
sense, would never end but simply spread across the Greater Middle East. (By
now, the U.S. has launched repeated air strikes in at least
seven countries
in the region.) At that moment, someone emailed me an
article by Tamim Ansary, an Afghan who had been in the U.S. for years but had
continued to follow events in his country of birth.
His piece, which
appeared
at the website
Counterpunch
, would prove prescient
indeed, especially since it had been written in mid-September, just days after
9/11. At that moment, as Ansary noted, Americans were already threatening , in
a phrase adopted from the Vietnam War era , to bomb Afghanistan "back to the
Stone Age." What purpose, he wondered, could possibly be served by such a
bombing campaign since, as he put it, "new bombs would only stir the rubble of
earlier bombs"? As he pointed out, Afghanistan, then largely ruled by the grim
Taliban, had essentially been turned into rubble years before in the
proxy war
the Soviets and Americans fought there until the Red Army limped
home in defeat in 1989. The rubble that was already Afghanistan would only
increase in the brutal civil war that followed. And in the years before 2001,
little had been rebuilt. So, as Ansary made clear, the U.S. was about to launch
its air power for the first time in the twenty-first century against a country
with nothing, a country of ruins and in ruins.
From such an act he predicted disaster. And
so it would be. At the time, something about that image of air strikes on
rubble stunned me, in part because it felt both horrifying and true, in part
because it seemed such an ominous signal of what might lie in our future, and
in part because nothing like it could then be found in the mainstream news or
in any kind of debate about how to respond to 9/11 (of which there was
essentially none). Impulsively, I emailed his piece out with a note of my own
to friends and relatives, something I had never done before. That, as it turned
out, would be the start of what became an ever-expanding no-name listserv and,
a little more than a year later,
TomDispatch
.
A Plutocracy of the Rubble?
So the first word to fully catch my attention
and set me in motion in the post-9/11 era was "rubble." It's sad that, almost
16 years later, Americans are still obsessively afraid for themselves, a fear
that has helped fund and build a national security state of staggering
dimensions. On the other hand, remarkably few of us have any sense of the
endless 9/11-style experiences our military has so imprecisely delivered to the
world. The bombs may be smart, but the acts couldn't be dumber.
In this country, there is essentially no
sense of responsibility for the spread of terrorism, the crumbling of states,
the destruction of lives and livelihoods, the tidal flow of
refugees
, and the rubblization of some of the planet's great cities.
There's no reasonable assessment of the true nature and effects of American
warfare abroad: its imprecision, its idiocy, its destructiveness. In this
peaceful land, it's hard to imagine the true impact of the imprecision of war,
American-style. Given the way things are going, it's easy enough, however, to
imagine the scenario of Tamim Ansari writ large in the Trump years and those to
follow: Americans continuing to bomb the rubble they had such a hand in
creating across the Greater Middle East.
And yet distant imperial wars do have a way
of coming home, and not just in the form of
new surveillance techniques
, or drones
flying
over "the homeland," or the full-scale
militarization
of police forces. Without those disastrous, never-ending
wars, I suspect that the election of Donald Trump would have been
unlikely
. And while he will not loose such "precision" warfare on the
homeland itself, his project (and that of the congressional Republicans) , from
health care to the environment , is visibly aimed at rubblizing American
society. If he were capable, he would certainly create a plutocracy of the
rubble in a world where ruins are increasingly the norm.
"... The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly respond to events--particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of what b's writing about here. ..."
"... It is more than just rise, however correctly pointed out by you, of Imperial Hubris--the whole panoply of the "tools" of military-political analysis is plain and simple wrong. This failure is based on a metaphysical mistake -- wrong reading of history, especially of the 20th Century, which led to an ultimate failure in understanding the issues of scales and proportions. What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA, not a gift to be cherished. Sand castles on the beach, however, do not live long, the high tide has arrived some time ago. ..."
"... As in the US DOJ, FBI, CIA etc., are organizations aimed directly to protect oligarchic rule, IRG protects ruling class of clerics in Iran, in both countries under guise of protecting constitution and law and order, earthly or heavenly. ..."
"... Unfortunately, "What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA," this "metaphysical mistake" had already ingrained itself into the Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history. ..."
"... While I don't disagree with you, it has to be well understood that any big "player" by 19th Century had its own version of Manifest Destiny e.g. Russia as a Third Rome. But it was namely through WW II where US could claim a "victory" over Nazism (hence a vast field of Anglo-American WW II history falsifiers) and thus realize itself as a continental power that the issue of exceptionalism really have got into over-drive and resulted in US literally running itself into the ground. When one has a political class (and population) not conditioned by continental warfare--it is almost inevitable. ..."
"... I get the impression the situation is typically less a matter of, "the editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue", than certain intelligence operatives tasked with gaming the media echo chamber, feed well placed assets prioritized talking points to create the illusion of a 'thing'. ..."
"... Just look at the media shitstorm regarding Russia, different crap, same difference! ..."
Significant
parts of
the
Trump administration
, Congress and the general Zionist borg would love to start a war
between the U.S. and Iran.
A war is unlikely. Iran's geography and strategic position is unassailable. Its global
political standing has increased during the last decades. Any war with Iran would be extremely
costly yet unwinnable.
But with U.S. pressure again increasing on Iran it is important to learn and understand what
happens inside of country. Unfortunately most reporting about politics within Iran is bit of a
mess. Considers the piece below from the Washington Post. Written from Turkey by a journalist
who (to my best knowledge) does not speaks Farsi nor has any special knowledge of the country:
With U.S. scholar's conviction, power struggle escalates between Iran's president and
hard-liners
ISTANBUL -- A high-stakes power struggle between Iran's moderate president and his hard-line
opponents in the judiciary appeared to escalate with the arrest of the president's brother
and the conviction of an American student for espionage this weekend -- rulings that seemed
timed to embarrass the Iranian leader at home and abroad
The piece should be classic foreign reporting. But who is speaking here?
... Nader Hashemi, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of
Denver, said ...
... Khamenei said in a speech this month, according to the Center for Human Rights in
Iran, an independent nonprofit based in New York
... said Alex Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington
... said Behnam Ben Taleblu, an Iran analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies in Washington
... [a]ccording to Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow and expert on Iran at the Brookings
Institution ...
There is certainly no reason to lambast the journalist, Erin Cunningham, for being lazy.
Getting five telephone or email interviews and authorized quotes for the piece was surely a
day's work. But how come there is no voice from Iran? The only quote from an Iranian person,
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is in translation of a lobby shop in New York which does not
reveal its sponsors. Is the quote correct? The other "expert" are all from outlets that are
more or less adverse to Iran's system of governance.
The piece makes the recent dispute and judicial action look extraordinary and sensational.
It connects it to actions in Washington DC:
The tensions come as Iran and the United States spar over the terms of a nuclear deal struck
with world powers to limit Iran's nuclear weapons program.
...
The Trump administration has taken a much harsher stance on Iran, threatening to abandon the
deal, and the Treasury Department on Tuesday announced new sanctions primarily targeting
Iran's ballistic missile program.
...
The arrest and conviction of Wang, a 37-year-old scholar at Princeton, appeared to target
Rouhani's wider foreign policy and engagement with the West. Although Wang was detained in
August 2016, the timing of the verdict is suspect, analysts say.
"Why did they keep it a secret as long as they did? Timing is important," said Alex
Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
Conflicts between the executive and the judiciary in Iran are legend and reoccur at least
every other year. They are independent of the president being "moderate" or "hard-line"
himself. Consider the obvious similarities between the above lede and this one from
2012
:
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- The head of Iran's judiciary lashed out at the country's president
Wednesday, the latest salvo in an escalating political conflict that has undermined much of
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's political clout
The Iranian constitution and political system is build on the principal of Vilayat-e Faqih,
the guardianship of the (Islamic) jurists. The undecided question is how absolute the primacy
of the jurists is supposed to be. The interpretations vary widely and often depend on the issue
at hand. The executive will naturally assert primacy wherever it can, while absolute
principalists in the judiciary will always assert that their jurisprudence is prime. The
conflict is daily bread in Tehran and it makes no sense to sensationalize it.
The arrest of the president's brother for corruption may well be justified. It should
astonish no one. It could be timed to assert pressure but we have no way to know that. It would
be mere speculation to say so. Experience has show that effective coordination within the
Iranian state machinery is way less than western authors tend to assume.
The U.S. student/spy had already been imprisoned for eleven months. That he was convicted
now is likely not related to any Trump tantrum or epiphany. Washington's capers are less
important in Tehran as the U.S. would like them to be.
All together the piece shows the typical pitfalls of U.S. reporting on Iran (and many other
countries).
Original and relevant voices from the ground are absent. None of the people involved in
the issues is questioned. "Expert" quotes from often partisan western think thanks are the
sorry substitute.
Cultural and historic characteristics are neglected. The current dispute between Rouhani
and the judiciary has its background in a century old discussion in Iran about the limits of
vilayat-e faqih. (The importance of this is comparable to conflicts about "executive
privilege" or "state rights vs. federal rights" in U.S. politics.) With that background the
spat between Rouhani and the judiciary is simply the marking of territories for his now
beginning second term.
Most of the issues happening in a foreign country's politics are NOT related to whatever
happens in Washington DC. U.S. writers love to draw such causal connections. But not every
hiccup in Moscow is in response to some fart in DC. More often then not there is no
connection at all.
One original voice from within Tehran's ruling circuit would have been more valuable to the
above piece than the five think tank quotes. A few more words about the historic role of the
judiciary would have helped to set some perspective. Connecting the political theater in Tehran
to Trump's zigzags makes it easier to write the lede. But there is no justification for it
without evidentiary backing.
Despite the nitpicking I don't regard the Cunningham piece as bad at all. Each day there are
way worse reports in the papers and on cable TV. It is probably the best one can do when the
editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue. Over the last years many experienced
foreign correspondents were fired or paid to leave. Main-stream media replaced serious foreign
reporting with childish "listicals", high school level "explainers" and cat pictures.
When a few dailies and news shows drive foreign policy making the lack of in-depth reporting
becomes a serious issue. Members of Congress and the administration get much of their foreign
policy knowledge from U.S. media reports. It is no wonder that they are clueless when those
reports lack insight and details. The crapification of high decision making is probably
directly related to the crapification of the news media. Trump taking his clues from Fox News
(and others) is bad. Fox News (and others) having no well reported clues at all is even
worse.
Posted by b on July 19, 2017 at 11:36 AM |
Permalink
The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in
Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly
respond to events -- particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of
what b's writing about here.
- One doesn't have to occupy Iran in its entirety. One can simply occupy the Khuzestan oil
province in the west of Iran to cripple the Iranian government.
Believe it or not, NYT's Tehran correspondent, Thomas Erdbrink, is pretty good. I remember
seeing a
video
a couple years ago where Erdbrink profiles Najiyeh Allahdad, a daughter of a martyr in the
Iran-Iraq War I believe. It was very sympathetic to the revolution. In the bio of Allahad NYT
published they included this:
How do you describe yourself?
I'm an Iranian Muslim who uses any opportunity to
improve her country and who protects her country's reputation in the world. I love life,
and I love peace. I feel that what people have lost in this world is spirituality. I've
devoted my life to trying to find this spirituality for myself first and then to help
others enjoy it.
Have you traveled outside of Iran? Where? What did you think?
I have traveled to
India, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, the United
States and Syria. I found some Eastern countries like India and China to be very civilized,
but they have not used their civilization to improve their daily lives. On the other hand,
I found the Western countries to be detached from their histories and stepping into a new
world that has an unclear future. Some Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.
seemed too dependent on Western countries and would be nothing without help from the U.S.
And a country like Iraq has always been hampered by circumstances throughout its
history.
There is a strong body of opinion within the U.S. national security state that
believes along with b that Iran cannot be defeated militarily. Trump is doing the bidding of
his buddies in Jeddah and Tel Aviv.
A beautiful piece of analytical, sequential surgery, b.
I was watching a doco at the weekend and #Occupy was mentioned, reminding me that we can
thank #Occupy for the introduction of 1%/99% into the lexicon, and the #Occupiers for the
meme...
The America dream
You have to be asleep
To believe it.
Similarly, I'm grateful to Trump for linking the terms "Fake News" and "Mainstream Media"
and making each an autonomic reminder of the other.
thanks b... msm is superficial at best... unfortunately they are beholden to israel's agenda
which is the same as the military, financial and neo-con industries... until that changes, it
will be playing fast with facts in order to perpetuate more war... good to know what the msm
is really about... it isn't about anything in depth, that's for sure!
Thanks! I noted Southfront cited him and linked to his article.
To continue my thought on this: Garbage in leads to garbage out. In the process of
propagandizing and indoctrinating the populous, you dumb them down to the point that to be
effective analysts and policy makers people must be reeducated. My #1 example is Trump. He's
been fed so much Crappola his entire life that it negatively affects his thought processes
and judgment. At least he's willing to call such crappola for what it is, although he in turn
produces his own version of it often.
A very good example of the change in the elite's philosophy from 1776 to today is found in
this clause from the Outlaw US Empire's Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the
earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them,
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.
And then compared to this exemplary expression of hubris from Karl Rove:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're
studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's
actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
In other words, we don't give a damn about what anybody else thinks or what the law
says--pretty much the same sentiments uttered by every megalomaniac that ever existed.
How to return to the prudent, moral, and law-based philosophy penned by Jefferson that
seems to guide the Multipolar Alliance? Where was it reported in the Western media that Iran
sanctioned the Outlaw US Empire for its overwhelmingly obvious support for terrorism that I
noted yesterday:
"In view of the overt support provided to terrorist groups by the US government and the
country's military and intelligence forces and repeated confessions by American officials to
having created terrorist groups and offered them all-out support, from the standpoint of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, the entirety of the United States' military and intelligence forces
are considered as supporters of terrorist groups in the region."
http://theduran.com/us-iran-sanctions-are-a-tit-for-tat-measure-that-is-part-of-a-wider-geo-strategic-reality/
Just how many Outlaw US Empire citizens are aware of the fact that it was deemed necessary
by a member of congress to introduce a bill entitled the Stop Arming Terrorists Act that
affirms the Iranian Parliament's decision to sanction such behavior. And how many citizens
are aware that their government's behavior flaunts numerous UNSCRs and is thus in violation
of International Law--the very same International Law it championed in 1940--Atlantic
Charter--which resulted in the UN Charter and UN organization? As someone who was trained to
teach US History, I can tell you I was never taught a huge amount of very important facts
about the Outlaw US Empire--indeed, many of my presentations and essays resulted in educating
my professors! And some talk of colonizing Mars! That's a huge howler! And I haven't even
touched upon Junk Economics and its related Randian Crappola.
The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise
in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly
respond to events--particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of
what b's writing about here.
It is more than just rise, however correctly pointed out by you, of Imperial
Hubris--the whole panoply of the "tools" of military-political analysis is plain and simple
wrong. This failure is based on a metaphysical mistake -- wrong reading of history,
especially of the 20th Century, which led to an ultimate failure in understanding the issues
of scales and proportions. What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due
to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate
wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of
messianic USA, not a gift to be cherished. Sand castles on the beach, however, do not live
long, the high tide has arrived some time ago.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a country's executive branch has clashed with its
judiciary branch. Errr, isnt that the entire point of separating these two government
functions, so they will clash instead of having the judicary act as a rubber stamp for the
executive? In the US, we call it the "Separation of Powers Doctrine." What is so wrong when
other countries, such as Iran, have the same policy our Founding Fathers wanted us to have?
Of course there is nothing sensational to write about, everyday occurrence elbowing for
influence peddling and positioning within grid of political power.
But more interesting is what such a common, for US Iran and most of other countries,
occurrences really mean, namely political game within strictly limited range of moves mostly
for benefit of electoral audience entertainment while constitutional and judicial framework
makes sure that Deep state and Rulling elite interests, political and economic are satisfied
no matter what.
As in the US DOJ, FBI, CIA etc., are organizations aimed directly to protect
oligarchic rule, IRG protects ruling class of clerics in Iran, in both countries under guise
of protecting constitution and law and order, earthly or heavenly.
Unfortunately, the overall collapse of civilization corrupted by money and power in a
unprecedented global dimension of mass mental enslavement, extereme radical consumerism,
religion,nationalism or delusional psychotic cult of globalism and suicidal growth of social
cancers is ubiquitous within societies crazed by fetish of material or immaterial social
products or commodities, monetizing everything including most of all human flesh, relations,
culture, religion, and humanist egalitarian societies. Such a decomposing ocean of human
flesh spawned an mercenary army of human looking zombies conditioned and ready to violently
defend their own enslavement for whatever reason was fed into their rotten brains.
Thanks for your reply!
Unfortunately, "What was merely a once in a lifetime window of
opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors
in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history
in favor of messianic USA," this "metaphysical mistake" had already ingrained itself into the
Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of
discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only
be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history.
As Hoarsewhisperer @9
intoned:
"The America dream
You have to be asleep
To believe it."
Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of
discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can
only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history
While I don't disagree with you, it has to be well understood that any big "player" by
19th Century had its own version of Manifest Destiny e.g. Russia as a Third Rome. But it was
namely through WW II where US could claim a "victory" over Nazism (hence a vast field of
Anglo-American WW II history falsifiers) and thus realize itself as a continental power that
the issue of exceptionalism really have got into over-drive and resulted in US literally
running itself into the ground. When one has a political class (and population) not
conditioned by continental warfare--it is almost inevitable.
I get the impression the situation is typically less a matter of, "the editors demand a
fast one on some less familiar issue", than certain intelligence operatives tasked with
gaming the media echo chamber, feed well placed assets prioritized talking points to create
the illusion of a 'thing'.
Any western reporting on America's/Israel's numero uno enemy du jour cannot be anything
other than psyops. The strategy of 'full spectrum' BS necessitates that the media become the
biggest (and most cost effective) venue for conducting psyops.
Just look at the media shitstorm regarding Russia, different crap, same
difference!
Yes, on the international stage I must agree with you, although it would've occurred
earlier if the US government hadn't censored George Seldes's interview with Hindenburg
shortly after the Armistice. Hindenburg: "The American infantry won the World War in battle
in the Argonne." (p 24;
You Can't Print That
; George Seldes; Payson & Clarke,
Ltd; New York; 1929)
Arguably, however, if the interview hadn't been censored and been
published as the world-wide scoop that it was, then the "Stab in the Back" propaganda charge
wouldn't have had anything to uphold it and Hitler's movement wouldn't have happened,
although it's very likely the Pacific War would've occurred regardless. Censorship and
Propaganda
always
have unforeseen consequences.
- One doesn't have to occupy Iran in its entirety. One can simply occupy the Khuzestan
oil province in the west of Iran to cripple the iranian government.
That was what Saddam thought in 1980. I suppose that's a bit too much like
ancient history for you to know anything about that war.
No shit. Afterall, the West provided assistance at every turn to the "revolutionaries" --
many of whom are now residents of USA -- to topple the Shah of Iran. Most of you know zip
about Iran, "1953", and the role of Soviet Union, UK, France, Germany, and United State of
America in the concerted effort to topple the uber nationalist Shah of Iran. You will not write our history for us, I assure you.
For any planned future for Iran, look at the pictures from Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Gaza. As
to the usual suspects, it's funny that they're Mideast experts but mostly connected to
Israel.
George Smiley 25
The break in US support for the rebel factions is interesting in that it hasn't been public
in US MSM. This includes the new coalition that doesn't want to attack Syrian government
forces.
Concise and spot-on summary that sums up the state of "journalism" in 2017.
@18 spinworthy
Remember 911 hero
Ashleigh Banfield
? Her "fall from
grace" is a typical example of what happens to American journalists who try to tell
tell the truth
about the empire's wars.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
Is not this a blowback of Washington neocons organized Kiev coup d'état of February 22, 2014 ?
Neocons sowed the teeth of dragon. Now wait...
Notable quotes:
"... The anger is a challenge for U.S. policymakers seeking to reach out to a shrinking pool of friendly faces in Russia. ..."
"... The anti-Western anger stands to grow even stronger if President Obama decides to send lethal weaponry to the Ukrainian military, as he has been considering. The aim would be to "raise the cost" of any Russian intervention by making the Ukrainian response more lethal. But even some of Putin's toughest critics say they cannot support that proposal, since the cost is the lives of their nation's soldiers. ..."
"... "The United States is experimenting geopolitically, using people like guinea pigs," said Sergey Mikheev, director of the Kremlin-allied Center for Current Politics, on a popular talk show on the state-run First Channel last year. His accusations, drawn out by a host who said it was important to "know the enemy," were typical of the rhetoric that fills Russian airwaves. ..."
"... Soviet rhetoric was officially anti-Western, but it couldn't repress ordinary Russians' passion for the Beatles or their enthusiasm for getting news from jammed Voice of America broadcasts. Those positive feelings spilled over after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... But the list of perceived slights from the United States has long been building, particularly after the United States and NATO bombed Serbia, a Russian ally, in 1999. Then came the war in Iraq, NATO expansion and the Russia-Georgia conflict. Each time, there were smaller spikes of anti-American sentiment that receded as quickly as they emerged. ..."
"... The years of perceived humiliations have "led to anti-Americanism at the grass-roots level, which did not exist before," said Vladimir Pozner, a journalist who for decades was a prominent voice of the Soviet Union in the United States. More recently, he has to explain the United States inside Russia. "We don't like the Americans, and it's because they're pushy, they think they're unique and they have had no regard for anyone else." ..."
"... Many Russians tapped into a deep-rooted resentment that after modeling themselves on the West following the breakup of the Soviet Union, they had experienced only hardship and humiliation in return. ..."
After a year in which furious rhetoric has been pumped across Russian airwaves, anger toward the
United States is at its worst since opinion polls began tracking it. From ordinary street vendors
all the way up to the Kremlin, a wave of anti-U.S. bile has swept the country, surpassing any time
since the Stalin era, observers say.
The indignation peaked after the assassination of Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov, as conspiracy
theories started to swirl - just a few hours after he was killed - that his death was a CIA plot
to discredit Russia. (On Sunday, Russia charged two men from Chechnya, and detained three others,
in connection with Nemtsov's killing.)
There are drives to exchange Western-branded clothing for Russia's red, blue and white. Efforts
to replace Coke with Russian-made soft drinks. Fury over U.S. sanctions. And a passionate, conspiracy-laden
fascination with the methods that Washington is supposedly using to foment unrest in Ukraine and
Russia.
The anger is a challenge for U.S. policymakers seeking to reach out to a shrinking pool of
friendly faces in Russia. And it is a marker of the limits of their ability to influence Russian
decision-making after a year of sanctions. More than 80 percent of Russians now hold negative views
of the United States, according to the independent Levada Center, a number that has more than doubled
over the past year and that is by far the highest negative rating since the center started tracking
those views in 1988.
Nemtsov's assassination, the highest-profile political killing during Vladimir Putin's 15 years
in power, was yet another brutal strike against pro-Western forces in Russia. Nemtsov had long modeled
himself on Western politicians and amassed a long list of enemies who resented him for it.
The anti-Western anger stands to grow even stronger if President Obama decides to send lethal
weaponry to the Ukrainian military, as he has been considering. The aim would be to "raise the cost"
of any Russian intervention by making the Ukrainian response more lethal. But even some of Putin's
toughest critics say they cannot support that proposal, since the cost is the lives of their nation's
soldiers.
"The United States is experimenting geopolitically, using people like guinea pigs," said Sergey
Mikheev, director of the Kremlin-allied Center for Current Politics, on a popular talk show on the
state-run First Channel last year. His accusations, drawn out by a host who said it was important
to "know the enemy," were typical of the rhetoric that fills Russian airwaves.
"They treat us all in the same way, threatening not only world stability but the existence
of every human being on the planet," Mikheev said.
Soviet rhetoric was officially anti-Western, but it couldn't repress ordinary Russians' passion
for the Beatles or their enthusiasm for getting news from jammed Voice of America broadcasts. Those
positive feelings spilled over after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.
But the list of perceived slights from the United States has long been building, particularly
after the United States and NATO bombed Serbia, a Russian ally, in 1999. Then came the war in Iraq,
NATO expansion and the Russia-Georgia conflict. Each time, there were smaller spikes of anti-American
sentiment that receded as quickly as they emerged.
Putin cranked up the volume after protest movements in late 2011 and 2012, which he blamed on
the State Department. It wasn't until last year, when the crisis started in Ukraine, that anti-Americanism
spread even among those who once eagerly hopped on planes to Miami and Los Angeles.
Fed by the powerful antagonism on Russian federal television channels, the main source of news
for more than 90 percent of Russians, ordinary people started to feel more and more disillusioned.
The anger seems different from the fast-receding jolts of the past, observers say, having spread
faster and wider.
The years of perceived humiliations have "led to anti-Americanism at the grass-roots level,
which did not exist before," said Vladimir Pozner, a journalist who for decades was a prominent voice
of the Soviet Union in the United States. More recently, he has to explain the United States inside
Russia. "We don't like the Americans, and it's because they're pushy, they think they're unique and
they have had no regard for anyone else."
... ... ...
Many Russians tapped into a deep-rooted resentment that after modeling themselves on the West
following the breakup of the Soviet Union, they had experienced only hardship and humiliation in
return.
"Starting from about 1989, we completely reoriented toward the West. We looked at them as a future
paradise. We expected that once we had done all that they demanded, we'd dance for them and they
would finally hug and kiss us and we would merge in ecstasy," said Evgeny Tarlo, a member of Russia's
upper house of parliament, on a Russian talk show last year. Instead, he said, the West has been
trying to destroy Russia.
The anti-Americanism makes it harder for American culture to make inroads through its traditional
means - soft-power routes such as movies, music and education. Last year, Russian policymakers ended
a decades-old high school exchange program that offered their nation's best and brightest the chance
to spend semesters at U.S. schools. Few Western artists now perform on Russian soil.
Western diplomats also say privately that they find themselves frozen out of speaking engagements
and other opportunities to explain their countries' positions to Russian audiences. And Russians
who work for local outposts of Western companies say their friends and neighbors increasingly question
their patriotism.
... ... ...
Even McDonald's, long an embodiment of Russian dreams about the West, was targeted for supposed
health violations in the fall. Some of its most prominent locations were forced to shut down temporarily.
When they reopened, McDonald's started an advertising campaign emphasizing its local ties and its
25-year history in Russia, playing down the Golden Arches' global significance as a bright beacon
of America.
Last week, one McDonald's billboard in the heart of Moscow read: "Made in Russia, for Russians."
Michael Birnbaum is The Post's Moscow bureau chief. He previously served as the Berlin correspondent
and an education reporter.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
While published almost 15 years ago, this artile still looks as if written yesterday. Presidents
change but foreign policy does not.
Notable quotes:
"... US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people. ..."
"... The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices. ..."
"... The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea. ..."
"... The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement. ..."
"... Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era. ..."
"... The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil. ..."
"... In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses. ..."
"... The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003) ..."
"... The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994: ..."
"... We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." ..."
"... " it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." ..."
"... The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ). ..."
"... In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy. ..."
"... In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics ..."
"... Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign. ..."
"... The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists" ..."
"... In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001) ..."
"... The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. ..."
"... both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up. ..."
"... The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.) ..."
"... Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office. ..."
"... The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals. ..."
"... In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. ..."
"... Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State." ..."
"... More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order. ..."
We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at
the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO
led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).
The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert intelligence operations within
the former Soviet Union, which were instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former
republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the latter,
these covert operations were launched with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas
pipeline corridors.
US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination
with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union
and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment
of millions of people.
The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital
to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block
countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former
Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and
corrupt political practices.
In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization of a vast region
extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.
The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence.
The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military
bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999,
there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.
War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic
frontiers and the worldwide imposition of "free market" system.
The Next Phase of the War
The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next stage of "the road map to war".
The bombing of presumed 'terrorist bases' in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended
to provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched
the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. (See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter
2004)
This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious implications. It means that Israel becomes
a major military actor in the US-led war, as well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American coalition.
The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between
Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes
a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling
to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.
This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel Sharon's plan to build
a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of Palestinian nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its territorial
domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland,
Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.
In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions on Libya and Iran. As well,
Washington is hinting at the need for a 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are
building up in Turkey.
So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean
to the Indian sub-continent and China's Western frontier.
The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons
Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received
congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold
War era.
The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy. Israeli nuclear warheads
are pointed at major cities in the Middle East. The governments of all three countries have stated
quite openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons "if they are
attacked" with so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the
World. Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.
Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services
Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used
in conventional war theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the Hiroshima
bomb".
Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret
meeting with senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held
at Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was held on
August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago.
The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense contractors in decision-making. It
is tantamount to the "privatization" of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar
profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda
regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a
view to upholding the use nuclear weapons for the "defense of the American Homeland."
Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to be "safe for civilians".
This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the next phase of this war, in
"conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.
In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for 2004, to develop this new generation
of "defensive" nuclear weapons.
The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion dollars, roughly of the same
order of magnitude as the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.
While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and Afghan war theatres,
tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded
toxic radiation was not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another
unidentified form of uranium contamination:
"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were astounding: the donors presented
concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than
in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net
The Planning of War
The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National
Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war
is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.
In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House,
the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under
the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses."
The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the
Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes
role in the formulation of US foreign policy.
The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:
"Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".
This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war theaters
in different regions of the World.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President
Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential elections.
The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward
bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of
the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of
a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)
The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"
The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda. One year before 9/11,
the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would
serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html
)
The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11
attacks as "a war pretext incident."
The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by
David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and
the nations will accept the New World Order."
Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.
" it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues,
except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the
key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan
war (1979-1989).
The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence
planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003)
to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military
rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html
).
Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world
- it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution
and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing
event." (Ibid)
This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning
at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational
assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's
"roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal
agenda.
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political
turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in
US political, social and institutional structures.
General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to
unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately
with a view to "preserving civil liberties."
Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger
mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used
as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military
government.
In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional
under the facade of a bogus democracy.
War Propaganda
In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it
was labeled by its critics:
"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant
stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across
the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)
And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and "troublesome"
media stories that "its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests." (Air Force
Magazine, January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing." (Adubato,
op. cit. italics added) Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation
campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid
here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war."(Ibid)
A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links to the Pentagon-remain actively
involved in various components of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts
of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the restoration
of democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping".
The derogation of civil liberties --in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"--
is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine
Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine
and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's
propaganda campaign.
The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense"
against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":
"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America
will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such
attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons
of mass destruction ( )
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct
violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses
on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these
losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient
threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction-
and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, ( ). To forestall
or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."12
(National Security Strategy, White House, 2002,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
)
To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication"
of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to
"State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."
But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the
fabricated enemy) are part of the National Security agenda.
In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty tricks' operations were launched
to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda,
which was then fed into the news chain.
In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland'
continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on
a daily basis across the news tabloids.
And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" terrorist occurrences are being upheld
as a justification for the next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:
1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed into the news chain.
2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as outlined in the PNAC
What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing") terrorist events are part and parcel
of military planning.
Actual Terrorist Attacks
In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated
"warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which
provide credibility to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the
implementation of "emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military actions". They are required,
in the present context, to create the illusion of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the American
Homeland.
The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's assumptions. In fact it is
an integral part of US military history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start
a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).
In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods",
to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist
Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty
lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified
Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See
Operation Northwoods at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html
).
There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist attacks,
including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).
According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or cells of these organizations),
which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the
very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The "intelligence asset" is not in direct contact
with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence
sponsors.
The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed?
What is the underlying network of ties?
For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged terrorist organization Jemaah
Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA
and Australian intelligence.
The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which contributed to pushing India
and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba
("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of which according to the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html
, Washington 2002).
What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and
the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul
Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky,
Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html
)
A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the creation of a so-called
'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating
reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance,
prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S.
forces." (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)
The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations.
Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This "prodding of
terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training
of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.
In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channeled
to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence
proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaeda
in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee
of the US Congress. (See US Congress, 16 January 1997,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
). In fact during the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda operatives,
bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian Muslim Army.
In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official
statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda
operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).(See See
Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003,
Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
)
The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia. And this happened barely
a few weeks before September 11, 2001, Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit
on contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on the Macedonian
Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the Macedonian
authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit). The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network
were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA), which
was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.
In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before
9/11.
Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, the terrorist organization
is reported (by the media and in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda".
This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation
of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding
of these terrorist occurrences.
The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military
intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed
by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's
ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial
in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support
these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA
September 11
While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his February 2003 UN address to "the
sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network", official documents, press and intelligence
reports confirm that successive US administrations have supported and abetted the Islamic militant
network. This relationship is an established fact, corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged
by Washington's mainstream think tanks.
Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months leading up to the war casually
accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different
points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.
Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the Irangate Contra scandal during
the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan
Contra paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky,
Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html
)
Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up.
The investigations and research conducted in the last two years, including official documents, testimonies
and intelligence reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence operation,
rather than a act conducted by a terrorist organization. (For further details, see Centre for Research
on Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003)
The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military
Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed
from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the
ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and
Globalization, op.cit.)
Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head of the ISI, was an official
visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI,
who allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close personal relationship with a number
of senior Bush Administration officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy
Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the course of his visit to Washington. (Ibid)
The Antiwar Movement
A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It
must ultimately unseat the war criminals and question their right to rule.
A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and eventually dismantle their
propaganda campaign.
The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European Union and around the world,
should lay the foundations of a permanent network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war
committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately
through this network that the legitimacy of those who "rule in our name" will be challenged.
To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its propaganda machine, we must reach
out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions
of ordinary people who have been misled on the causes and consequences of this war.
This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on terrorism" and revealing the political
complicity of the Bush administration in the events of 9/11.
September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.
Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as pretext to wage war is a criminal
act. In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA
and September 11:
"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars."
Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are mere puppets. We must
also address the role of the global banks, corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly
stand behind the military and political actors.
Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the
White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas
oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly
behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment,
they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can
be brought to office.
Criminalization of the State
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of
authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.
In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals
in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world
domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State",
which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress.
Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military,
the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts,
but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies
of the State."
More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic
and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces
"free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with
the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and
defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental
and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological
consensus and commitment to the New World Order.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production
of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.
More generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms, dismantle the institutions of global capitalism
and disarm financial markets.
The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels,
in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses,
professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.
The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a single worldwide movement.
People must be united across sectors, "single issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective
understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.
The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism
unprecedented in world history. This global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between
and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social
movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major
regions of the world in a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting
world peace.
Schizophrenic and very well armed America is a real danger to the world...
The USA is no longer can be considered as a country that can obey agreements and treaties signed.
That means that it is pariah on international stage and only the power of Us military-industrial complex
keeps other countries from spitting in the US representatives face.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past. In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement will take something just short of a miracle. ..."
"... Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed "moderate rebels." ..."
"... But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental" U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless "war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops and wounded about 100 others. ..."
"... In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin). ..."
"... The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26: ..."
"... "My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief." ..."
"... Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners." ..."
"... Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented: ..."
"... "My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice." ..."
"... It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing. ..."
"... Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach! ..."
"... America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles. ..."
The immediate prospect for significant improvement in U.S.-Russia relations now depends on something
tangible: Will the forces that sabotaged previous ceasefire agreements in Syria succeed in doing
so again, all the better to keep alive the "regime change" dreams of the neoconservatives and liberal
interventionists?
Or will President Trump succeed where President Obama failed by bringing the U.S. military and
intelligence bureaucracies into line behind a cease-fire rather than allowing insubordination to
win out?
These are truly life-or-death questions for the Syrian people and could have profound repercussions
across Europe, which has been destabilized by the flood of refugees fleeing the horrific violence
in the six-year proxy war that has ripped Syria apart.
But you would have little inkling of this important priority from the large page-one headlines
Saturday morning in the U.S. mainstream media, which continued its long obsession with the more ephemeral
question of whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would confess to the sin of "interference" in
the 2016 U.S. election and promise to repent.
Thus, the headlines: "Trump, Putin talk election interference" ( Washington Post ) and
"Trump asks Putin About Meddling During Election" ( New York Times ). There was also the
expected harrumphing from commentators on CNN and MSNBC when Putin dared to deny that Russia had
interfered.
In both the big newspapers and on cable news shows, the potential for a ceasefire in southern
Syria – set to go into effect on Sunday – got decidedly second billing.
Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong
enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will
have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past.
In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement
will take something just short of a miracle.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and
CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike
Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed
"moderate rebels."
But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have
unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental"
U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless
"war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad.
Bitter Experience
Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary
of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents
Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air
strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops
and wounded about 100 others.
In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before
the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov
agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved
by both Obama and Putin).
The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically
blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26:
"My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite
the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack
Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to
the Commander in Chief."
Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling
Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the
agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack
Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S.
military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners."
Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International
Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented:
"My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results.
people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented
in practice."
On Syria, Putin decried the lack of a "common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations,
enormous effort, and difficult compromises."
Lavrov's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, meanwhile, even expressed sympathy for Kerry's quixotic
effort, giving him an "A" for effort.after then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter dispatched U.S. warplanes
to provide an early death to the cease-fire so painstakingly worked out by Kerry and Lavrov for almost
a year.
For his part, Kerry expressed regret – in words reflecting the hapless hubris befitting the chief
envoy of the world's "only indispensible" country – conceding that he had been unable to "align"
all the forces in play.
With the ceasefire in tatters, Kerry publicly complained on Sept. 29, 2016: "Syria is as complicated
as anything I've ever seen in public life, in the sense that there are probably about six wars or
so going on at the same time – Kurd against Kurd, Kurd against Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sunni,
Shia, everybody against ISIL, people against Assad, Nusra [Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate]. This is
as mixed-up sectarian and civil war and strategic and proxies, so it's very, very difficult to be
able to align forces."
Admitting Deep-State Pre-eminence
Only in December 2016, in
an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe , did Kerry admit that his efforts
to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as
all those forces he found so difficult to align.
"Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation [of the ceasefire
agreement] extremely hard to accomplish," Kerry said. "But it could have worked. The fact is we had
an agreement with Russia a joint cooperative effort.
"Now we had people in our government who were bitterly opposed to doing that," he said. "I regret
that. I think that was a mistake. I think you'd have a different situation there conceivably now
if we'd been able to do that."
The Globe's Viser described Kerry as frustrated. Indeed, it was a tough way for Kerry
to end nearly 34 years in public office.
After Friday's
discussions
with President Trump, Kremlin eyes will be focused on Secretary of State Tillerson, watching to see
if he has better luck than Kerry did in getting Ashton Carter's successor, James "Mad Dog" Mattis
and CIA's latest captive-director Pompeo into line behind what President Trump wants to do.
As the new U.S.-Russia agreed-upon ceasefire goes into effect on Sunday, Putin will be eager to
see if this time Trump, unlike Obama, can make a ceasefire in Syria stick; or whether, like Obama,
Trump will be unable to prevent it from being sabotaged by Washington's deep-state actors.
The proof will be in the pudding and, clearly, much depends on what happens in the next few weeks.
At this point, it will take a leap of faith on Putin's part to have much confidence that the ceasefire
will hold.
Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 years. He now serves on the
Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to
Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). He can be reached at:
[email protected]
. A version of this article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.
Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe, did Kerry admit
that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton
Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.
It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US
power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into
parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing.
Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that
last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were
these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open
for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach!
I watched part of Oliver Stone's interview. The reason Snowden remains in Russia is because
the USA refuses to sign an extradition treaty with Russia. There are several Russians living in
the USA wanted for looting large sums in Russia, and Putin wants justice, but they are exempt,
like Hillary. Read about her Russian Uranium kickback deal, its on-line, but of no interest to
our corporate media.
Sean, that is pure nonsense. America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria
got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels
to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles.
"... The downing of a Syrian warplane by a US F-18 Super Hornet on Sunday proves that Washington's real objective in Syria is not to defeat ISIS but to topple the government, carve up the country and install a puppet who will follow Washington's directives. ..."
"... The US ignored the normal protocols, failed to communicate their activities on the "de-confliction" hotline (as per their agreement with Moscow) and –BAM– the Syrian warplane was taken out with two missiles over Ja'Din in the western part of Raqqah province. The attack was a clear provocation. ..."
"... So far, the operation has made great strides as two main Syrian armies have pressed ahead on parallel tracks killing or routing jihadist fighters on the way. Sunday's attack (on the Syrian warplane) may have been a desperate attempt to slow the forward-progress of loyalist troops rapidly advancing on the cities of Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and Abu Kamal, all located on the banks of the Euphrates. ..."
"... The Russian MoD statement added that, "any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets." ..."
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
"... It is not in anyone's interest for Russia to shoot down American aircraft. It is not in American interest too, despite US, indeed, spoiling for fight "within Syria only"–an idea floated by some US "strategists". ..."
"... There is no real strategy behind it–it is mostly irrational and a result of accumulating frustrations of US and its military losing so long cultivated appearance of the "finest fighting force in history", granted that this force was defeated already in Afghanistan, Iraq and its proxies have their asses handed to them in Syria. That is why it is dangerous, because it is all product of frustrated people throwing tantrums while still thinking that they can think rationally. ..."
"... like any spoiled child not getting their way they are acting out in a weak and embarrassing manner destroying things with no strategic value beyond the immediate tantrum ..."
"... Every time the pentagon does something stupid like this and Russia takes a deep breathe and goes about its business calmly its Washington and the neocons who look like fools and everyone everywhere can see it. ..."
"... Putin whatever else he is or may be speaks his mind quite publicly in interviews, at the UN and countless other venues. His message is consistent and he walks the talk. His public goal to maintaining Syrian sovereignty and territorial borders is well known among his friends and enemies. ..."
"... The Syrian war is over. Washington has lost and all Washington's allies in the overthrow Assad assemblage know it. Just pay attention who travels where the past 2 years. ..."
"... Seeing this in emotional terms is naive. There's always a plan. The reason why it looks senseless to you is because the US and Europe are obviously not working in their own interest. Their "elite" is mostly compromised. ..."
"... That makes it sound really close. For what it's worth I think that the Neocon/Deep State alliance needs a real National Emergency to take power. They surely need a dictatorship. ..."
"... Their 9/11 attempted Coup failed on the domestic side, and information about their treason is leaking out faster than ever with fewer American every day believing the WTC "collapse by fire" story. ..."
"... True. There's also a high probability of sabotage in the minefield. Trump is still disliked by the Deep State IMO. What's stopping them from deliberately walking a bunch of American goyim soldiers onto mines? ..."
"... Putin should continue patience with childish Washington. Daily revelations of CNN and other liars will undermine their politician positions and force more accountability. Some heads should roll, some networks should reboot. The rest of the world expects more from the USA that it does of itself. ..."
"The shooting down of the Syrian SU-22 is another demonstration that the US is prepared to
resort to the most reckless means to defend its footholds in Syria and lay the basis for the broader
war that is being prepared."
- Peter Symonds, World Socialist Web Site
The downing of a Syrian warplane by a US F-18 Super Hornet on Sunday proves that Washington's
real objective in Syria is not to defeat ISIS but to topple the government, carve up the country
and install a puppet who will follow Washington's directives. ISIS doesn't have an airforce
nor is there any chance that the lumbering Soviet-era SU-22 was mistaken by the American pilot before
it was shot down. No, the Syrian plane was positively identified on a clear day flying over Syrian
territory. The US ignored the normal protocols, failed to communicate their activities on the
"de-confliction" hotline (as per their agreement with Moscow) and –BAM– the Syrian warplane was taken
out with two missiles over Ja'Din in the western part of Raqqah province. The attack was a clear
provocation.
The downing comes on the heels of three other similar incidents in which Syrian troops were attacked
by US-coalition forces in the area around al Tanf near the Jordanian border. All four of these provocations
have taken place within the last month suggesting that Washington intends to prevent the Syrian army
from liberating its cities and territory in the east where US-proxy militias are operating.
In late May, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) launched Operation "Grand Dawn" which combined the 800th
Battalion of the Republican Guards, Hezbollah, Iranian combat troops, and Russian Special Forces
(to assist in an advisory capacity.) Grand Dawn, which is the biggest operation of the war, is aimed
at clearing the eastern border, liberating ISIS-held cities and territory east of the Euphrates,
and reopening the corridor between Damascus to Baghdad. The campaign is an attempt to reestablish
the central government's control over its land, its resources and its population centers in the East.
So far, the operation has made great strides as two main Syrian armies have pressed ahead
on parallel tracks killing or routing jihadist fighters on the way. Sunday's attack (on the Syrian
warplane) may have been a desperate attempt to slow the forward-progress of loyalist troops rapidly
advancing on the cities of Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and Abu Kamal, all located on the banks of the Euphrates.
The surge of Syrian troops poses a clear threat to Washington's operational strategy called Plan
B which is aimed at (a) splintering the state into smaller, US-controlled enclaves, (b) blocking
the critical landbridge between Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran, and (c) establishing a secure
base for training Sunni militants to reenter Syria-proper and engage in future regime destabilizing
operations. Seen in this light, the downing of a Syrian SU-22 might have been an attempt by coalition
leaders to wave off the Syrian assault which is undermining Washington's fallback strategy.
The Russian response to the attack was fast and ferocious. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey
Ryabkov condemned the action as "a massive violation of international law and military aggression."
He said: "This strike has to be seen as a continuation of America's line to disregard the norms
of international law .(It is) an act of aggression designed to help to the very terrorists the US
says it is fighting."
Not surprisingly, the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) announced it would end its cooperation with
the US military under the terms of the Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air
Safety in Syria. In practical terms, that means that Moscow will terminate the use of a military
hotline for preventing accidents in Syrian airspace. So while media giants like the Wall Street Journal
applaud the reckless attack as "signaling an increased willingness by the Trump administration to
directly challenge President Bashar al Assad and his allies", more sober analysts anticipate that
the move will only ratchet up the tensions increasing the probability of a clash between the two
nuclear-armed superpowers.
The Russian MoD statement added that, "any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned
vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will
be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets."
If the attack was intended to provoke a response, then it appears to have succeeded. If another
Syrian warplane is shot down, Moscow will have to retaliate. Was that the intention?
Russia does not want to deepen its involvement in Syria. It's primary goal is to defeat ISIS,
preserve the elected government, and prevent the country from disintegrating into failed state anarchy.
Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed this topic recently in an interview where he was asked:
"Can you explain why you sent troops to Syria and what your objective was?"
Putin answered: "It's very easy to explain. We saw what was happening to other countries in the
region, particularly Iraq and Libya . due to the forceful ousting of their governments. The governments
were destroyed, not simply ousted from power, and their leaders were killed. We don't want to see
the same thing happen in Syria or the whole region will be plunged into chaos."
There it is in black and white. Russia has no territorial ambitions in Syria nor does it have
any designs on Syria's resources , industry or pipelines. This isn't about money, oil or land. It's
about Russia's national security which has been greatly impacted by the scourge of terrorism. It's
also about defending "sovereignty", which is the bedrock principle upon which global security rests.
This is why Russia is in Syria.
That said, it's not in Russia's interest to shoot down American aircraft, intensify the war on
coalition-proxies or take any action that would lead to a military escalation. Putin does not want
to prolong or expand the war, he wants to end it.
ORDER IT NOW
Unfortunately, there are so many players sharing the same, crowded battlespace that even the slightest
miscalculation could lead to a serious conflagration. It's going to take enormous restraint to tip-toe
through the Syrian minefield without triggering a Third World War. We'll have to see if Putin is
up to the task or not.
That said, it's not in Russia's interest to shoot down American aircraft, intensify the
war on coalition-proxies or take any action that would lead to a military escalation.
It is not in anyone's interest for Russia to shoot down American aircraft. It is not in
American interest too, despite US, indeed, spoiling for fight "within Syria only"–an idea floated
by some US "strategists".
There is no real strategy behind it–it is mostly irrational and a result of accumulating
frustrations of US and its military losing so long cultivated appearance of the "finest fighting
force in history", granted that this force was defeated already in Afghanistan, Iraq and its proxies
have their asses handed to them in Syria. That is why it is dangerous, because it is all product
of frustrated people throwing tantrums while still thinking that they can think rationally.
Small Russian contingent in Syria is the last US chance to fight "peer", whose military history
dwarfs that of US, and the last chance to correct a rather abysmal US war record since WW II.
Do not discount a deeply hidden but still manifesting itself complex of inferiority. As Sun Tzu
stated: "Once you get mad–you lose". Pentagon is mad as hell while US journos (most of them anyway)
are warmongering lowlifes.
Washington does NOT want a conflagration with russia because it can not win, they know it and
will not suffer the staggering losses Russia will inflict upon them thereby destroying forever
the myth of American military invincibility.
Washington power and moral suasion is rapidly degrading. everyone can see it.
what we are seeing are 2 things:
like any spoiled child not getting their way they are acting out in a weak and embarrassing
manner destroying things with no strategic value beyond the immediate tantrum
Second they hope to show the world Russia can not be relied upon as a calm and thoughtful
partner. the pentagon/neocons dumbells are goading the russians into rash flamboyant foolishness
much like the strikes we are seeing from washington.
Every time the pentagon does something stupid like this and Russia takes a deep breathe
and goes about its business calmly its Washington and the neocons who look like fools and everyone
everywhere can see it.
it was written centuries ago that a mans reputation arrives on foot and departs on horseback.
a concept the neocons apparently never learned.
@Sean you could not be more in error than if you are being paid to say this . are you? lol
Putin whatever else he is or may be speaks his mind quite publicly in interviews, at the
UN and countless other venues. His message is consistent and he walks the talk. His public goal
to maintaining Syrian sovereignty and territorial borders is well known among his friends and
enemies.
The Syrian war is over. Washington has lost and all Washington's allies in the overthrow
Assad assemblage know it. Just pay attention who travels where the past 2 years.
Both Americas allies in this effort and foes all travel to Moscow. It is Putin who will decide
not Washington.
As for Washington not being able to stand by let Russia take them out. the blunt truth is Washington
has been outplayed at every turn since October 1 2015. The feckless overrated Obama first and
now his remnants in state/cia/pentagon not yet removed by trump.
Unless Washington wants to go nuclear and end up destroying life on earth they will have to
comes to terms with being norma desmond the past her prime silent screen star in sunset boulevard
dreaming things were not as they are and go quietly into the night becoming just another important
nation not the ONLY important nation.
All the bluster out of Washington hides a profound systemic economic crisis brewing that may
take down the entire USA economy. Trumps voters sensed it which is why he won against the psychopathic
harridan hillary.
1. the underfunded pension system is about to implode. Illinois is the canary on this but is
by no means alone heading over the cliff.
2 for several decades the usa economy has become habituated to the easy profits that come from
pillaging other nations and their economies or bluntly intimidating them into paying protection.
3. our economy may not be able to survive without imploding into crisis and eventual deeply
unpleasant restructuring without keeping pillage going.
4. on the home front our health care system is a rico style racket for the benefit of the insurance
companies and healthcare providers like hospitals companies. without congress being paid off to
allow this fraud based industry to get a pass on robinson-pattman act enforcement on pricing healthcare
costs would never be in the sky as it is now.
4. the true line in the sand was october 1 2015 when putin spoke at the UN and told the world
he and russia would no longer accept america pillaging the planet at will leaving mass misery
and death in their wake. china although politely diplomatic to the Nth degree is right behind
putin and has his back.
the days of American exceptionalism pillaging are all but over.
over the for the pentagon the military industrial complex, the wall street banks and rakeoffs
the bought conressman and senator obtain by doling it all out.
mostly irrational and a result of accumulating frustrations
Seeing this in emotional terms is naive. There's always a plan. The reason why it looks
senseless to you is because the US and Europe are obviously not working in their own interest.
Their "elite" is mostly compromised.
It's going to take enormous restraint to tip-toe through the Syrian minefield without triggering
a Third World War.
That makes it sound really close. For what it's worth I think that the Neocon/Deep State
alliance needs a real National Emergency to take power. They surely need a dictatorship.
Their 9/11 attempted Coup failed on the domestic side, and information about their treason
is leaking out faster than ever with fewer American every day believing the WTC "collapse by fire"
story.
So, in my view, they have no option than to shut down US Democracy – and soon – even if it
risks WW3. All they care about is their own necks.
True. There's also a high probability of sabotage in the minefield. Trump is still disliked
by the Deep State IMO. What's stopping them from deliberately walking a bunch of American goyim
soldiers onto mines?
Both Trump and Russia could be held responsible in the MSM. Two birds with one stone.
Putin is very Russian in that he has a Big Nation mentality. He takes time and works glacially.
But he needs to be sharper.
Stalin was a bad guy, but he got some things right. In a dog-eat-dog world, his Caucasus cutthroat
bandit-mentality crept to the top. This Caucasus mentality was a combination of savvy, cunning,
patience, brutality, ruthlessness. A kind of hot-blooded fury with icy determination as coolant.
This mentality, plus intelligence and determination, enabled him to outmaneuver all other nationalities
in the game of power. He beat Latvians, Ukrainians, Poles, Russians, and even Jews in the game
of power.
The Amerikan Empire is dying. These are its death throes. That "accident" where a US Navy destroyer
was almost sunk by a Filipino Cargo Ship shows how weak this supposed "superpower" has become.
It wasn't a sneak attack.
It was the Commitment to Diverskitty. That Diverskitty has pussified the US Military. Putin
should go ahead and down a US Plane. These idiots are spread so thin its not even funny. The DMZ
in Korea doesn't seem to have anywhere near the force Bush, sr and Bush, jr put into Kuwait and
Iraq. Bush jr and his snipe hunt has winnowed the forces down. Anti-White Akhenaten II has downsized
the Military to a small and ineffective force. The combat readies have probably left. The downsizing
which sent career officers onto the streets and the Horrible VA scandal has probably sent the
Legions home.
What is left is trash and theft. These clowns cannot whip eggs. That disaster at sea near Japan
is a portent of Doom. If they push Putin, he should just shoot those old outdated F-18s down.
That F-35 chickenhawk is a giant turkey. They have started grounding the F-22 because
they don't have enough certified pilots and the budget is bloated by welfare detritus best known
for loafing, looting and sucking.
They said it was the American Century. Its over now. Did you enjoy the Empire building? The
Nintendo War? The Snipe Hunt? This forever war just hit the reality of the crash of diversity
and debt.
Putin should continue patience with childish Washington. Daily revelations of CNN and other
liars will undermine their politician positions and force more accountability. Some heads should
roll, some networks should reboot. The rest of the world expects more from the USA that it does
of itself.
Actually hima rights serve as pretext and justification for neocolonial actions on weaker
countries.
Notable quotes:
"... "American exceptionalism," Sen. Sasse thus continued, "was an understanding about the historical moment in which the American founding flipped on its head the relationship between rights and government." ..."
"... "The American founding is a claim that God gives us rights, not government, and government is our secular-shared project to secure those rights. That's all American exceptionalism means. That's what Washington used to mean." ..."
"American exceptionalism," Sen. Sasse thus continued, "was an understanding about the historical
moment in which the American founding flipped on its head the relationship between rights and government."
Sen. Sasse reached our conclusion. "The American founding is a claim that God gives us rights,
not government, and government is our secular-shared project to secure those rights. That's all American
exceptionalism means. That's what Washington used to mean."
"... These hacking claims, or any other claims for that matter is spread by deep state in relations with western media that in turn spread this disinformation to western readers = money and support for the military-industrial thugs. ..."
Since the promotion of Big Lies is at the foundation of Fake News, I was just reminded of an
oldie-but-goodie:
"In this spring of 1953 the free world weighs one question above all others: the chance
for a just peace for all peoples.
"The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which
govern its conduct in world affairs.
"First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares
the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
"Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but
only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.
"Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own
choosing is inalienable.
"Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is
indefensible.
"And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in
armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.
Ike's actions at the moment he uttered those words made them a mockery as did his later
behavior. But the Big Lie was aimed at the domestic audience, to cover-up the depravity
already committed and that which would be soon to follow.
1.
These hacking claims, or any other claims for that matter is spread by deep state
in relations with western media that in turn spread this disinformation to western readers =
money and support for the military-industrial thugs.
2.
Racism against Russia
"... Capitalism's best solution is the self-perpetuating armaments industry. The weapon makers, think tanks and contractors that service the Pentagon and spy agencies, together with the Wall Street banks who make high-interest loans to fund wars, thrive under a foreign policy of deadly conflict. ..."
"... Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly called this "the madness of militarization." Instead of spending on infrastructure and human services for the populace, our rulers promote war - to sound patriotic as they pocket the profits. ..."
"... The new president's war strikes are no different from those of other presidents since 9/11. But his practice of allowing the Pentagon to decide troop deployments, while keeping the White House, Congress and the public in the dark about military actions and civilian casualty numbers, is an escalation of the unchecked, undemocratic use of executive power. ..."
"... The threat of peace. The presumption of endless war by many is not surprising, because it's what this country has settled into. Trump's so-called foreign policy has no intention of ending conflicts and gaining peace. An end to hostilities would drastically damage U.S. capitalism. ..."
, 2017 " Information Clearing
House " - Trump started his presidency off with an explosion! Several of them in fact - bombing
Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles costing $93 million taxpayer dollars; using the Mother of all Bombs
in Afghanistan; striking homes with drones in Yemen; bombing civilians and aid workers in Iraq;
sending more troops to Somalia; and threatening to nuke North Korea! Some have actually said it makes
him more "presidential."
Actually, this is not abnormal behavior for the USA. Trump inherited at least seven ongoing conflicts
from Presidents Obama and G.W. Bush. The United States has been fighting in Afghanistan for 15 years,
ever since 9/11, under both Democratic and Republican rule. Over 660,000 Afghans have been displaced.
Nearly 12,000 civilians died in 2016. The U.S. pours close to $611 billion a year into its budget
for weapons, equipment, soldiers and contractors, far more than any other country. It amounts to
36 percent of all global spending on "defense."
Economic distress. The worn-out, 500-year-old system of capitalism is everywhere scrambling
to revive disappearing markets and hang on to threatened wealth of the very few. This creates fierce
competition between major and minor imperialist powers and their pet regimes - competition that means
nothing less than war. For war is the ultimate profit machine, creator of very few winners and masses
of losers.
Capitalism's best solution is the self-perpetuating armaments industry. The weapon makers,
think tanks and contractors that service the Pentagon and spy agencies, together with the Wall Street
banks who make high-interest loans to fund wars, thrive under a foreign policy of deadly conflict.
They produce things that are immediately destroyed when used, and that creates demand for more of
the same.
Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly called this "the madness of militarization." Instead of spending
on infrastructure and human services for the populace, our rulers promote war - to sound patriotic
as they pocket the profits.
The underlying reason for economic and political instability, especially in the Middle East but
also in the U.S. and everywhere else, is that capitalism no longer works and cannot survive on egalitarian
principles. Revolutionary impulses against massive poverty, austerity, and repression are not going
to go away. So it makes sense that militarism is top of the agenda for today's rulers.
Pentagon handed power. Trump has appointed many war generals to top positions in government
and the National Security Council. Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, Marine Gen. John Kelly, and Lt. Gen.
H.R. McMaster have been heavily involved in nonstop, unsuccessful military conflicts for decades.
Yet Trump has authorized them to bomb whomever, wherever, and however they please, no matter the
civilian casualties and chilling nuclear aspects. He has removed executive and legislative branch
constraints on his favorite generals, in violation of a fundamental tenet of the Constitution - civilian
control of the military.
As more and more troops are sent to Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and other "unnamed" countries, and
Trump threatens North Korea, he is expanding the war machine. North Korea has been asking for a peace
treaty with Washington and Seoul for 64 years but has been flatly refused. Now U.S. bases, ships
and missile sites surround the area and provocative war games take place off the Korean coast every
year. And the North Koreans continue to build weapons to defend themselves.
The new president's war strikes are no different from those of other presidents since 9/11.
But his practice of allowing the Pentagon to decide troop deployments, while keeping the White House,
Congress and the public in the dark about military actions and civilian casualty numbers, is an escalation
of the unchecked, undemocratic use of executive power.
The threat of peace. The presumption of endless war by many is not surprising, because
it's what this country has settled into. Trump's so-called foreign policy has no intention of ending
conflicts and gaining peace. An end to hostilities would drastically damage U.S. capitalism.
Permanent conflict between those who exploit and those who rise up against repression and poverty
will only be solved when the profit system is widely condemned and overturned.
This is the punch line. This is where all the neo-conniving AIPAC slime monkeys have gotten us,
a bankrupt nation! No viability! How would you like to be Netanyahu and start to realize your
big bully boy Goliath just lost his other eye? You would be in a pickle as soon as everyone realizes
your predicament. No subsidies to buy the expensive parts for your air force. AIPAC unable to
sway anyone to do anything on your behalf . Now an experienced seriously battle hardened Hezbollah,
backed by a similarly hardened SAA, on your southern border; all with new armaments. Oh boy the
sleepless nights are just starting.
Without wars, without all these big fake 'existential threats', the U.S. would have collapsed
long ago.
The purpose of these wars are twofold. First and foremost, maintain the paramount prosperity
of the military and the armament industry. Second, create victims for blame of America's troubles.
The more the troubles, the more the enemies.
Today, the U.S. has the most enemy of any country in the world. This is why Trump gave war
powers to his generals. Need more. Is there such a thing as a bubble for enemy?
The problem is too many people are making a good living out of the system to jeopardise their
fat pay cheques. Look at the millions working in academia , the surveillance,cops, prison and
armament industries, the UN and EU apparatchiks and the thousands of secretaries and Armani suit
sellers...all making big bucks. Even the CEO of Exxon ( no dummy obviously) must know what we
know, that he is ruining the world for his grandchildren, says nothing.
Don't rock the boat just spew over the side and keep rowing is the ... I hate this word but it
fits... meme.
A brain rot destroying the social fabric of ameri3Ka. Has to be a pathology that comes with mother's
milk to accept the bombing and death of millions and war, war, war after war. The worst part is
people are helpless to do anything about it. It takes SACRIFICING time and body if necessary.
Shutting the whole place down por days, weeks or months. Whatever it takes. People CAN stop wars,
especially if they are the aggressors.
i'm authorizing all nations to bomb the united states for their war mongering crimes, if the people
of the US wont stop their govt then the rest of the world must do it..
Thanks for the clip on Illinois budget issues. Since Reagan the US has been closely following
the guide book for becoming a failed country. A handful of privileged folks take all the money
and everyone else lives in poverty.
Hmm... actually, from what i recall, Trump didn't want to just keep the wars going, until after
he was blackmailed by the lies which became "Russia-gate".
Upon retrospection, now that the NY times has retracted what they said about Russia-gate, it
would appear that the liars behind it got what they wanted: another president committed to subordinating
himself to the war-profiteering, psychopathic vampires and vultures behind the secret government.
The Trump presidency has made it all very clear who are behind the Federal government: "secret
government" executives (who love to play dictators) and war-profiteers (vampires and vultures).
War making is a big business. Billions upon billions are spent filling weapon manufacturing and
world peace does nothing to promote war apparatus. I*n the hard news section of ICH, notice that
678 people were killed by war machinery yesterday, and that's only the tip of the iceberg as most
war deaths from all the world's military are mostly kept out of the news. But most importantly,
those deaths cannot forever be kept at bay in a world that is always shrinking. One day, it is
my contention, as well as that of other more well-known prognosticators, that those who fight
by their sword will die by their sword. Even though I am personally as agnostic as it gets, some
of hose bible passages sure seem to hi the nails on the head.
See:- '''JFK to 911, Everything Is a Rich Man's Trick''', a Stunning article exposing the anti-communist
motive behind the Banksters' & Billionaires' support for & creation of Hitler, Nazis , & Al CIA
da terrorists & fascists around the world.
See:-'''Fascist Birch Society & Its Billionaire H.L.Hunt's Complicity in Assassination of JFK'''.(Alex
Jones & the infiltrated new host of The Power Hour are mouthpieces of the Birch Society which
plants damage control articles on searches of itself.) See:-'''Fascist Birch Society Ties to Western
Goals-Nazis, CIA, CNP, World Anti-Communist League Death Squads, Hunt, Koch & Pew Billionaires'''
, ,'''Claire Conner, Birch Society Insider Whistleblower'''
"... Missile Crisis. Not only are Russian and US servicemen now deployed in the same war zone (the Americans totally illegally), but unlike what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a US President who terminally lacks the willpower to deal with the crazies on the US side, I am talking about the Neocons, of course. ..."
"... In fact, under Kennedy there were no real Neocons to tackle to begin with. Now they are running the White House ..."
"... Second, it is absolutely clear that the US Ziomedia and Congress will declare any, any, positive outcome from the meeting as "Trump caved in to Putin" and try to get a pound of political flesh out of Trump for it. So for Trump any external success will mean an internal disaster. And we already know that the man does not have what it takes to deal with such attacks. Frankly, his only "tactic", so to speak, to deal with the Neocons has been to try to appease them. So short of Trump asking for political asylum in Russia and joining Snowden somewhere in Russia, I don't see him ever taking any independent action. ..."
"... Third, if we look at the people around Trump it is pretty clear that the only intelligent and rational person in the White House is Rex Tillerson. The rest of them are lunatics, maniacs and imbeciles – the current US what shall I call it-"actions" (can't call it a "policy") towards Syria clearly prove that the Executive Branch is completely out of control. ..."
"... We now can clearly see that Mattis and McMaster are not these military geniuses presented to us by the Ziomedia but that, in fact, they are both phenomenally incompetent and that their views of the conflicts in Syria and even Afghanistan can only be characterized as totally lacking anything remotely resembling any kind of vision. ..."
"... For all his intelligence, Tillerson can't even rein in this Nikki idiot at the United Nations. ..."
"... Please don't buy this sanctions canard. The damage these sanctions could do they have already done. The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger, this is confirmed by international organizations and by the private sector . In fact, removing the sanctions right now would hurt the Russian economy far more, especially the agricultural sector, which has greatly benefited from the de-facto protectionist protection provided to the Russian economy by these sanctions. ..."
"... Besides, since Congress and UN Nikki have made it pretty darn clear that sanctions will remain in place until Russia agrees to return Crimea to the Ukraine, nothing will change until the current Ukraine finally breaks into three or four parts. ..."
"... As for the Ukraine, the situation there is so bad that an increasing number of specialists are saying that even the US has lost control of Banderastan and that now it's going to be all about intra-Ukie power plays: the social, political, military, cultural and economic disaster has reached what I would call an "escape velocity" when the various processes taking place are basically chaotic, unpredictable and unmanageable. I am personally very dubious that the Americans would have anything to offer the Russians. ..."
First, we should all stop kidding ourselves, Russia and the USA do not have "disagreements". The
sad and frightening reality is that we are now closer to war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Not only are Russian and US servicemen now deployed in the same war zone (the Americans totally illegally),
but unlike what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a US President who terminally lacks
the willpower to deal with the crazies on the US side, I am talking about the Neocons, of course.
In fact, under Kennedy there were no real Neocons to tackle to begin with. Now they are running
the White House while Trump serves them coffee or watches TV in another room (I am joking of
course, but just barely). In this context, to meet on the "sidelines" of a G20 conference is bordering
on the criminally irresponsible. What the world would need is for Trump and Putin to meet in a "Camp
David" like format for at least 3-5 days with all their key advisors and officials. Even if we assume
100% good will on both sides, meeting on the "sidelines" of an already big conference just won't
make it possible to get anything done. In the very best of cases Lavrov and Tillerson could have
done most of the hard work away from the public eye, but the truth is that the Russians say that
so far the two sides have not even agreed upon an agenda.
Second, it is absolutely clear that the US Ziomedia and Congress will declare any, any, positive
outcome from the meeting as "Trump caved in to Putin" and try to get a pound of political flesh out
of Trump for it. So for Trump any external success will mean an internal disaster. And we already
know that the man does not have what it takes to deal with such attacks. Frankly, his only "tactic",
so to speak, to deal with the Neocons has been to try to appease them. So short of Trump asking for
political asylum in Russia and joining Snowden somewhere in Russia, I don't see him ever taking any
independent action.
Third, if we look at the people around Trump it is pretty clear that the only intelligent
and rational person in the White House is Rex Tillerson. The rest of them are lunatics, maniacs and
imbeciles – the current US what shall I call it-"actions" (can't call it a "policy") towards Syria
clearly prove that the Executive Branch is completely out of control.
We now can clearly see that Mattis and McMaster are not these military geniuses presented
to us by the Ziomedia but that, in fact, they are both phenomenally incompetent and that their views
of the conflicts in Syria and even Afghanistan can only be characterized as totally lacking anything
remotely resembling any kind of vision. Yet these two "geniuses" seem to be in charge.
For all his intelligence, Tillerson can't even rein in this Nikki idiot at the United Nations.
We should stop kidding ourselves and stop pretending like there is anybody to talk to for the Russians.
At best, they are dealing with a Kindergarten. At worst, they are dealing with an evil Kindergarten.
But either way, there is nobody to talk to on the US side, much less so somebody to begin solving
the many issues that need solving.
I will admit that I did have high hopes for Trump and his apparent willingness to sit down and
have an adult conversation with the Russians. I was especially inspired by Trump's repeated rejection
of the Ziomedia's narrative about Russia and by what appeared to me as his "no nonsense" approach
towards getting things done. I wrote many articles for this blog saying that having hopes (not expectations!)
for Trump was the right thing to do. And, frankly, I think that at the time it was. Last
Fall I even wrote an entire chapter on this topic in the book "
Russian Military Power 2017 " report. Since it is pretty well written, I actually recommend that
you download and read it: it is a mix of pretty good information about the Russian Armed Forces and
the garden variety nonsense about Russian hackers and their cyber-threat to US and its allies. Just
set aside the clearly politically-induced nonsense and you are left with a rather well made summary
of what the Russian Armed Forces are up to these days.
I have to thank the DIA for this report: it made me feel young again, like I was in the 1980s
when all the students of warfare and of the Soviet military were reading these annual "Soviet Military
Power" reports with great interest. But other than making some of us feel young, the real purpose
of this document is clear and it is the very same one behind the Cold War era "Soviet Military Power"
series: to justify an increase in "defense" (i.e. "aggression") spending by showing how scary these
evil Commies/Russkies were/are.
This would all be rather funny, and nostalgic in a way, if it did not show the total lack of imagination
of the folks at the Pentagon. Far from coming up with anything novel or interesting, they are bringing
back into service stuff which for years had been collecting dust in the memories of now mostly retired
Cold Warriors. It is rather pathetic, really.
Over the past 30 years or so, Russia went from being the Soviet Union, to being a Somalia-like
"democratic hell" during the 1990s, to becoming a completely new entity – a "New Russia" which is
dramatically different from the Soviet Union of the 1980s. In contrast, the US got completely stuck
in its old patterns, except for this time they are "the same, but even worse". If the US did not
have nukes that would almost be okay (after all, the world can let "Uncle Sam" slowly lose his sclerotic
brain, who cares?) but when a nuclear superpower is acting like an out-of-control rogue state, this
is very, very, scary.
So back to our G20 meeting again. The first thing which needs to be said is that Trump is weak,
extremely weak: he goes in with the Ziomedia and Congress hating him and with a basically treacherous
White House team clearly controlled by Pence, Kushner and the rest of the Neocon crazies. To make
things worse, Trump can offer the Russians absolutely nothing they would want or need.
Please don't buy this sanctions canard. The damage these sanctions could do they have already
done. The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger,
this is confirmed by
international organizations and by the
private sector . In fact, removing the sanctions right now would hurt the Russian economy far
more, especially the agricultural sector, which has greatly benefited from the de-facto protectionist
protection provided to the Russian economy by these sanctions. Likewise, the Russian defense
industry has successfully adapted to the total severance by the Ukronazi regime of all the defense
contracts with Russia and now 100% Russian military systems and parts are being produced in Russia
at a cheaper price and of a higher quality. Besides, since Congress and UN Nikki have made it
pretty darn clear that sanctions will remain in place until Russia agrees to return Crimea to the
Ukraine, nothing will change until the current Ukraine finally breaks into three or four parts.
Trump could, in theory, offer the Russians to stop sabotaging the peace process in Syria and the
Russians would surely welcome that. But since the US policy of illegal air and missile strikes combined
with a deployment of US forces on the ground in Syria is failing anyway, see
here and here ,
the Russians are going to get what they want whether the US wants it or not.
As for the Ukraine, the situation there is so bad that an increasing number of specialists
are saying that even the US has lost control of Banderastan and that now it's going to be all about
intra-Ukie power plays: the social, political, military, cultural and economic disaster has reached
what I would call an "escape velocity" when the various processes taking place are basically chaotic,
unpredictable and unmanageable. I am personally very dubious that the Americans would have anything
to offer the Russians.
In Syria, the only problem the Pentagon has is no air superiority. Without air superiority
the Pentagon is helpless. Russia could give them that, maybe partially at least, in some areas.
And Ukraine - without regular cash infusions Kiev is dead. And that's what Trump could offer (maybe.
He would have to grow some balls). And that's a possible deal.
Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests,
including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break "into three or four parts" by itself).
If Trump 2016 wins out, great. If the neocons fully reassert control, Russia is gonna get squeezed
further regardless.
I find it unsettling that someone whom I trusted can see "Nikki" as a person, with personal
ideas. She doesn't recall her real name and her religion; how could she give a damn about whatever
she spouts on orders from whoever is the object of her sycophancy?
"... If only it were that simple – there is giant invisible elephant sitting in on that meeting – ISRAEL. Of course Putin is telling the truth. ISIS can easily be defeated by both the US and Russia working together – it is almost done now. It is 100% up to Trump - more war or a return to a measure of peace? ..."
"... You gave the American illiterate clown too much credit, credit he certainly do not deserve. If you expect him to become a fully fledge statesman like the one-in-a-century Vladimir Putin, you'll be disappointed. ..."
"... Mistakes and stupid decisions, there are many but one of his "mistakes" stands out above all: Giving the Pentagram & CIA free hand to run the US's wars as they see fit. He have now reduced himself to being a mere porch chimp, like Obongo, for his white ziocon owners. I hope Russia have back-channels to these two rough institutions because they are going to need it ..."
"... I don't know what he would tell the boob , but he should say, "Enough of the adolescent attention seeking behavior, OK?" Note to author: There is entirely too much hagiography for the USA's leading buffoon. ..."
"... Israel, you darn well know that the US (US interests, American people) have zero to gain in the Eternal Wars in the Middle East, and that all the serial aggressions over there are all to benefit Israel. Duh! Including the demand that 'Assad must go', and for Syria to come apart so Israel can pick at the carcass. ..."
"... So for Putin to tell Trump what Trump already knows is silly. We all know that the wars are all to benefit Israel, and we all know that what menaces the planet and Russia and the people of the US is the harsh reality of the Z USA. - That Zionist Jews completely dominate our media and deepstate (Pentagon, NSA, CIA, etc..). ..."
"... Let's hope Trump has enough wisdom to recognise how deep this swamp really is before it swallows him. ..."
Russia has had no leader equal in stature and public support to Putin since Stalin – in a recent
poll for the greatest personality in history, a plurality of Russians placed Putin and Stalin at
the top, preceding Pushkin, the Russian poet who occupies a place safeguarded for Shakespeare in
English hearts...
They are very, very different. Their biggest difference lies in experience. Putin has led his
country for (more or less) 17 years; he learned the tricks and skills of the power game the hard
way, from being a frontman for the seven Jewish bankers who privatized Russia in Nineties, to a fully
independent autocrat comparable to the penultimate Russian Tsar Alexander III, or to Napoleon III.
He is a wise ruler, in the Confucian way, forever hiding his steel will under a velvet glove; always
modest, moderate, temperate, not given to a momentary abandon of passion. He is in full control of
himself, and the Sages tell us this is the most difficult and sublime subject of control. He is also
a responsible and reliable statesman; his word is as good as his bond: he kept the ridiculous promises
he gave to Yeltsin's family. He is also very popular with his subjects.
... ... ..
However, both leaders are severely handicapped. Trump is handicapped by the poisonous campaign
insinuating that he had been elected due to Russian interference and that he is in thrall to Russia;
at any conclusion short of a military strike the New York Times and CNN will smirk
that he surrendered the crown jewels. Putin is handicapped by the fact that Russia is weaker than
the US in every way excepting Doomsday weaponry. Russia is surrounded by US military bases; the US
military budget is ten times bigger than the Russian one. Putin has very little leeway to retreat
and he is likely to respond in force to a provocation.
... ... ...
Russia is a good friend of Iran and Syria, and it does not interfere with our friendship with
Israel. Israelis understand that for us they are a Taiwan, while the rest of the Middle East is a
China. You can do the same: make peace and friendship with Syria and Iran, while retaining friendship
of Israel. They will understand; perhaps they will whine for a while, but they will eventually find
a new modus vivendi.
Before getting into a war, define your objectives. If you will do this regarding Syria, you'll
see that you are getting into a war for the interests of the army command, for the interests of global
banking and for Israeli interests. I'd respect these interests, they are perfectly legitimate, but
they aren't your interests, they aren't interests of the American people.
Generals like wars, that is their occupation; they want more wars, a bigger part of budget, more
promotions. But a good ruler commands his generals, he does not follow their command. I have sent
home three quarters of my generals, and my popularity did not suffer. How come? I appointed a silly-looking
non-professional guy for Secretary of Defence with the brief to slim down the Army. He did it and
he got all the flak. At the end, I fired him and the Army loved me even more.
You will really prosper and you will be called the best president of all time, if you will slim
down your military. Russia has had many bases abroad, from Cuba to Vietnam, from Aden to the Arctic
North; we disbanded them all, and we did not regret it for a day. Bases are an expensive thing, and
it is better to do without them.
You know, my generals beseeched me to send troops into the Ukraine, but I didn't. We'd better
spend money on the improvement of our citizens' life. Now a few million of Ukrainians have voted
with their feet: they moved to live and work in Russia, because our way of life is better than theirs.
And bear in mind: the Ukraine had been the richest part of the USSR in the time of the Union's breakup
in 1991. Now they are quite poor. It is better to improve the economy than to fight wars.
The global bankers also like wars. I respect their wishes, but I do not intend to oblige them.
The Jews like wars, but it is not necessary to grant them every wish. The US has not a single real
interest to fight for Syria or Ukraine. Or for Estonia. I can promise you: our tanks will not roll
into the Baltic states, though they were a part and parcel of Russia for three hundred years. Just
take away the NATO bases from our vicinity. If you won't we'll have to defend ourselves.
Nixon also made a U-turn on his policy towards Russia. Instead of confrontation, he chose détente.
Putin to Trump: You can do a U-turn on the Middle East wars your country has carried
on for too long. These wars are futile. Everything you want to obtain in Syria, you can have
without shooting a single bullet, without sending a single soldier.
If only it were that simple – there is giant invisible elephant sitting in on that meeting
– ISRAEL. Of course Putin is telling the truth. ISIS can easily be defeated by both the US and
Russia working together – it is almost done now. It is 100% up to Trump - more war or a return
to a measure of peace?
Was campaign Trump telling the truth when he said America First – no more wars? We shall find
out soon!
Peace - Art
p.s. I think that Trump's future depends on it – his base will desert him if he chooses Israel
over America.
You gave the American illiterate clown too much credit, credit he certainly do not deserve.
If you expect him to become a fully fledge statesman like the one-in-a-century Vladimir Putin,
you'll be disappointed.
Mistakes and stupid decisions, there are many but one of his "mistakes" stands out above
all: Giving the Pentagram & CIA free hand to run the US's wars as they see fit. He have now reduced
himself to being a mere porch chimp, like Obongo, for his white ziocon owners. I hope Russia have
back-channels to these two rough institutions because they are going to need it
Russia is not a great country, it even is not large.
As to being great, economically it is comparable to Spain.
Its 1600 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 70ties technology, is the only greatness, these
missiles guarantee the independence of Russia.
Russia has ONE aircraft carrier, the USA has dozens, as far as I know.
The capacity to retaliate is in this world the only guarantee to stay independent, as N Korea
makes abundantly clear these days.
Russia is not even geographically large, it seems large on most maps, the Mercator projection,
that stretches the North Pole point infinitely.
On top of that, most of N Russia, Siberia, is uninhabitable.
Global warming may change this.
I guess my first reaction is that Richard Nixon had to resign under threat of impeachment.
Not sure I want to end my presidency under similar circumstances. I'm also skeptical of the claim
that Nixon set the basis for prosperity. Wage stagnation began in the early 1970s, during his
administration.
Putin is the only leader in the world left stupid enough to take Trump seriously and have hopes
for "cooperation", when everyone else – even the likes of Duterte – are dissing on him, just waiting
it out patiently until his inevitable impeachment. Speaks volumes about the desperate situation
Putin is in.
I don't know what he would tell the boob , but he should say, "Enough of
the adolescent attention seeking behavior, OK?" Note to author: There is entirely too much hagiography
for the USA's leading buffoon. He's a baby faced narcissistic punk who should be nowhere
near the levers of power because he'll stoop to anything for a little attention. And another thing.
This is entirely too melodramatic.:
Jun 3, 2017 Putin defends Trump – 'Don't worry, be happy'
President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement caused anger and anxiety
across the world. But is there more than meet the eye? How many critics have actually read the
agreement themselves – as President Putin rightfully points out? The agreement is a framework
agreement with no particular obligations. There are no guidelines as to how resources should be
spent, and the resources which the US ratified are quite substantial.
Trump is surrounded by open and hidden enemies, by people who pray for his failure. He is
opposed by his own secret services, by the media, by his own party. His popularity isn't certain.
So true.
If Putin were to speak his mind freely to Trump, and it is not likely, as their conversation
will certainly be bugged, recorded and leaked by the NSA to the hostile media, he'd tell him:
The points you make about the current state of the world and affairs between the two countries
is mostly spot on if a bit utopian but Putin should tell him these things anyway and to hell with
the power of the evil Cabal --
"Lenin was very, very friendly to Jews; he had many Jewish colleagues, but he never allowed
them to ride upon him." No, he just let them kill millions of Russian Christians. Small detail
in history, of course.
What does the US want to have in Syria? You name it, you can have it, and without war, without
expenditure, without trouble. And I do not mean in a part of a broken and fragmented Syria
under occupation, I mean one Syria, united and complete, with its capital Damascus, and its
president Bashar al Assad. There is nothing within reason that President Assad would refuse
you and I'll second his promise.
Israel, you darn well know that the US (US interests, American people) have zero to gain
in the Eternal Wars in the Middle East, and that all the serial aggressions over there are all
to benefit Israel. Duh! Including the demand that 'Assad must go', and for Syria to come apart
so Israel can pick at the carcass.
So for Putin to tell Trump what Trump already knows is silly. We all know that the
wars are all to benefit Israel, and we all know that what menaces the planet and Russia and the
people of the US is the harsh reality of the Z USA. - That Zionist Jews completely
dominate our media and deepstate (Pentagon, NSA, CIA, etc..).
So this is the dilemma that confronts Putin, Trump, and all people of good will on the
planet.
What Putin should tell Trump is to look at what Putin managed to pull off with a nation also
absolutely under the thrall of antagonistic Rothschild minions, and how Putin managed (heroically)
to wrest power from them. Putin is trained in Judo, which involves using your op0nents own momentum
against them. That's what he did with the Jewish Oligarchs, he mollified some with kindness, and
he attacked the most dangerous ones directly, throwing them all off balance and making them wonder
what the next move might be, since the one certainty you're dealing with- is their own, honed
to absolute lasers' perfection; self-interest.
So far Trump hasn't sent troops into Syria or bombed Iran. Hasn't downed a Russian jet or done
anything so stupid that there's no turning back. We all have a shred of hope that Trump might
manage to pull off a Putin, but any advise Putin could give would be great.
However, you should not allow these wonderful people to ride upon you as upon a horse.
exactly, but you have to make it look like they are right up until the point
that Khodorkovsky / John Podesta is arrested on child abuse charges (or some other high ranking
chump) This will send shock waves though their power structure, and have them all scrambling to
protect their own arses, even as they turn on each other.
Their power is top down, yours is grass-roots up. Use that president Trump, play them as if
they're Judo opponents always coming at you, and also keep in mind their galactic egos and preternatural
self-interest, and somehow we might meet in the middle and toast the redemption and deliverance
of mankind from the devil itself.
please check out the lies being told as a pretext for a false flag chemical weapons attack
on Syria. Putin, as usual speaks the plain truth, whereas the ZUS- as usual- speaks treacherous
lies
I like Trump and he was definitely not the Deep State candidate but his knowledge is
limited which puts him in a precarious position. I can only imagine how much irradiated garbage
– masked as the "Truth" – he's getting fed daily. A "friendly" establishment veteran, with an
intricate, detailed story, can sound very authoritative to the inexperienced.
Let's hope Trump has enough wisdom to recognise how deep this swamp really is before it
swallows him. If I were him, I'd plug everyone to a Voight-Kampff test and keep a herd of
hungry pigs in the WH's basement.
@jilles dykstra You are wrong on every point. The US has 11 aircraft carriers, not dozens.
While it's still more than Russia, it shows your ignorance. Russia is the largest country in the
world, regardless of the projection, and has people living throughout its territory, even above
the Arctic Circle. It's missiles are. It '70s tech, it has in fact continued upgrading its missile
forces, with Bulava, Yars, and Sarmat systems being their latest SLBM, road mobile ICBM, and heavy,
silk launched ICBM.
As to its economy being comparable to Spain, when was the last time Spain
- built a spaceship
- launched a nuclear submarine?
- launched a nuclear icebreaker?
- commissioned a fast beeeder reactor?
- developed a modern fighter plane?
- built a passenger jet?
Russia has done all of this in the last decade or so.
2010 Dems lost the House
2012 the Dems lost the Senate
2016 Dems lost the White House
The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama's presidency,
including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative
seats.
Legates et al. (2015), for example, found that only 0.3 percent of 11,944 peer-reviewed articles
on climate and related topics, published during the 21 years of 1991 to 2011, had explicitly stated
that recent warming was mostly man-made.
"In the last 20 years, we have released more than a third of all the CO2 produced since the
beginning of the industrial period. Yet global mean surface temperature has remained essentially
constant for 20 years, a fact that has been acknowledged by the IPCC, whose models failed to predict
it. NOAA's State of the Climate report for 2008 said that periods of 15 years or more without
warming would indicate a discrepancy between prediction and observation – i.e., that the models
were wrong. Just before the recent naturally occurring el Niño event raised global temperature,
there had been 18 years and 9 months without any global warming at all."
@1Rw Thanks for informing me on the number of aircraft carriers.
Any globe can inform you that Russia is not large, especially not in land that can be used.
On Spanish technical and military efforts, as it is already occupied by the USA it cannot defend
itself against USA occupation, as Russia does.
For corporations, too, fall into this downward
spiral. It has become easy to forget that the only truly effective checks on
greed are moral in nature, and will be effective only if the greedy are
convinced they answer to a Being infinitely more powerful than they are (and
even then, incompletely).
Mere political checks on corporate power can
never work when corporations have the money to buy political classes.
When civic morality collapses into
I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine utilitarianism, those at the
helm of corporations see accumulation as natural and even expected.
Is this not neoliberalism in a nutshell?
I've heard neoliberalism described as "capitalism with the gloves off" as it
is blamed for the worsening wealth gap. An important difference between
neoliberalism and its classical liberal ancestor, though, is that its
ancestor did not arise within and had no necessary connection to secular
materialism. The version of classical liberalism developed most famously by
Frederic Bastiat (1801 – 1850) in his slim classic
The Law
(1849), offered a Christian economics. Classical
liberalism is
not
inherently materialist. The implicit joining of the
two has been a catastrophe for the developed world. Power centered in global
corporations answering only to each other has become the final economic
reality, money their primary instrument. The long-term result, having come
to fullest fruition since the financial crisis of 2008, is the wealth gap:
the accumulation, in the hands of a group small enough to fit into a
university auditorium with room to spare, of more wealth than is possessed
by the entire bottom half of the world's population!
Corporations fall for the lure of power no
less than a political class, and are many times better at it! The idea that
"the free market" will check their activities, promoted by Libertarians, is
surely as naïve as anything any Marxist ever said. They become not merely
"too big to fail" but beyond the control of abstract "economic logic" which
is just the increasingly puny decisions, in aggregate, of the increasingly
moneyless and powerless. Money, after all,
is
power in materialist
global civilization, and if you don't have it, you're impotent. Moneylenders
discovered this at the regional level in the late 1700s. Their descendants
have been expanding on the basic idea ever since. Leftists are right to
believe this is an important factor behind the present surge of "populism"
and other manifestations of unrest all over the world - rebellions against
an insular elite, loyal only to money, whose idea of "work" is moving
investments around all day and tallying the profits, while undermining and
destroying the autonomy of indigenous populations.
@Agent76
May 5, 2017 Hans-Hermann Hoppe: A World Without Theft
Dr. Hoppe's book 'The Economics and Ethics of Private Property' (mises.org/EEPP)
is among the most important modern contributions to libertarian thought.
Hoppe, like Rothbard, connects laissez-faire economics to normative
libertarian theory with laserlike precision and inexorable logic.
https://youtu.be/D0DoeyI8YCI
Outstanding, yes. If more libertarians were like Rothbard and Hoppe, they
might provide a meaningful opposition movement. Instead they just offer a
different brand of open borders lunacy and national suicide.
Blonde hair blue eyed Waffen SS soldiers .I assume
baptized Christian .being wasted by beautiful blonde haired Conservative Orthodox Christian Women
Russian Snipers. This is what you will always get when you fall for the lies of the worshippers
of Franco.
Hitler and Franco .enablers of the Mohammadan Gang Rape Army .Hitler's Waffen SS-Werhrmacht
gang rape Army
Short tiny Andrew Anglin doesn't realize how much he has in common with the Jewish Antifas on
a fundamental Level ..
History offers up important lessons for the Alt Right
There is a historic
precedent for the Alt Right in US History:look no further than the late
19th-early 2oth Century US Labor Movement it was racially
xenophobic .isolationist and economically progressive .The late 19th-early 2oth
century Labor Movement gave us such wonderfull things such as The Chinese Legal
Immigrant Exclusion Act and the Sihk Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act .not bad!!!
And let's honest The Alt Right kiddie brigade that worships
Hitler Franco Pinochet .also swims in the sewage of JFK and Ronnie Reagan
worship two scoundrels who unleashed race-replacement immigration policy on The
Historic Native Born White American Working Class..
"... To put it perhaps bluntly, neoconservatism serves the Washington war machine, where the prevailing idea of "American exceptionalism" is "liberal democracy" forced on a reluctant world at gunpoint. Mainstream Republicans have also promoted the dominance of neoconservatism's flipside which we mentioned earlier, neoliberalism. Neoliberal economics underwrites the global capitalist consensus, as its public intellectuals, the first of whom were Hayek and Milton Friedman (1912 – 2006), championed the unregulated market, rejected all forms of state-directed central planning (though they seemed okay with planning if corporations were doing it), lauded the privatization of public services (even prisons!), and recommended austerity to deal with public debt. Neoliberalism could be described by anyone who sought to do so as the triumph of the real Masters even if they'd never heard of Hegel: global-corporate CEOs able to buy political classes, tech billionaires often in bed with the deep state, hedge fund billionaires, corporate media pundits assuring us that all is well in the ship of state (or was until Trump got elected), Hollywood celebrities to keep us titillated and distracted, well-paid court economists and other court intellectuals to scold us against "populist" inclinations because, after all, There Is No Alternative! ..."
and understand why working class whites voted so
overwhelmingly for Trump. (
Note
: that author was not supporting Trump
and probably finds the alt-right horrifying.)
The alt-right, we should note, rejects the
"movement" conservatism of the mainstream GOP as dead - compromised,
intimidated, out of ideas, having no idea what it wants to conserve. For
decades now mainstream Republicans have been walking gingerly around issues
like affirmative action, because they are scared of their shadows of being
called racists - a fact hardly lost on the Left. The result is a movement that
has spent itself, and has little left to say. Think again of last year's GOP
debates and how Trump owned them. Mainstream Republicans floundered helplessly
in the face of his command of both mass media and social media. At the same
time, one heard no new ideas at all from Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush or
even Mitt Romney at one point. Mostly they just embarrassed themselves (and in
the case of Bush, the original favorite of corporate insiders, wasted over $100
million in donor money).
Moreover, the bulk of GOP "satellite"
institutions, the many "think tanks" (e.g., Heritage) and its major
publications (e.g.,
National Review
,
Human Events
, "conservative"
syndicated columnists such as George Will, etc.), attacked Trump, but
communicated no forward-looking path for the country. This was not lost on the
alt-right.
The mainstream GOP has furthered not
conservatism but
neo
conservatism. The differences are, uh,
huge --
To put it perhaps bluntly, neoconservatism serves the Washington war machine,
where the prevailing idea of "American exceptionalism" is "liberal democracy"
forced on a reluctant world at gunpoint. Mainstream Republicans have also
promoted the dominance of neoconservatism's flipside which we mentioned
earlier, neoliberalism. Neoliberal economics underwrites the global capitalist
consensus, as its public intellectuals, the first of whom were Hayek and Milton
Friedman (1912 – 2006), championed the unregulated market, rejected all forms
of state-directed central planning (though they seemed okay with planning if
corporations were doing it), lauded the privatization of public services (even
prisons!), and recommended austerity to deal with public debt. Neoliberalism
could be described by anyone who sought to do so as the triumph of the real
Masters even if they'd never heard of Hegel: global-corporate CEOs able to buy
political classes, tech billionaires often in bed with the deep state, hedge
fund billionaires, corporate media pundits assuring us that all is well in the
ship of state (or was until Trump got elected), Hollywood celebrities to keep
us titillated and distracted, well-paid court economists and other court
intellectuals to scold us against "populist" inclinations because, after all,
There Is No Alternative!
Against all this, the alt-right raises its
fist and says,
Hell No, We Won't Go!
We demand our identity as white
Americans, the right to preserve our own culture, and the right to live and
associate with those of our choice!
So after all of this explication, why do I
see the alt-right as an understandable and perhaps even justifiable response to
our current situation, but otherwise at least partly wrongheaded,
philosophically and culturally?
Recent history should help clarify matters. Generalized
open borders policies born of a multiculturalist mindset do not result in
stable mass societies. If they fail for a society of around 67 million people
(roughly the population of France), then assuredly they won't work for one of
over 325 million people (that of the U.S.). Such policies cannot work for those
who do not consciously choose them, which is most people. The term
the
masses
sounds derogatory. It need not be. It simply means the majority,
those who are
average
, who go off experience and habit, whose lives are
circumscribed by what affects them directly (family, work, church, filing a tax
return once a year, etc.), who rarely think outside the boxes these supply, and
who bring to the table the talents and skills they have, along with their
individual hopes, dreams, fears, sweet spots, and pain points. They are often
very good at what they've learned to do. Most can generally take care of
themselves, so long as their lives are not disrupted by forces they neither
understand nor can control. Most prefer the company of people like them, who
think like them, who can relate to them, will trust them because they've known
each other all their lives in some cases, and with whom they would be
comfortable sharing a beer.
Interfere with these people, force them down
paths not of their choosing, and barring the appearance of a Donald Trump you
might not have a rebellion on your hands, but you will almost surely get slow
but increasing dysfunction, as is the clearly the case with many working class
white people who voted for Trump: the one population whose fortunes are
shrinking along with their numbers, and whose tendencies toward chronic health
problems, substance abuse, suicide, etc., are rising.
Other things being equal, I'd allow them
(including those white people who find that the alt-right is making sense) to
live as they see fit and be left alone. If they wish to separate, then let them
separate. This is what the alt-right gets "right."
But before they depart I'd ask them: instead
of rejecting just left-wing Hegelianism, why not reject the entire Hegelian
paradigm? The embrace of right-wing Hegelianism is what the alt-right gets
"wrong." The Master-Slave dichotomy may have seemed necessary, but never truly
was. It was always an academic construct laid on top of a far more complex
reality. Slave-consciousness may be overcome, in time, by
self-reliance
consciousness: a large frontage road alongside the Enlightenment superhighway
of modernity, less traveled but fruitful for those who did. What is good and
right about self-reliance consciousness is its absence of ethnic or gender
specificity. White Europeans of various nationalities other than British chose
it for decades when they came to the U.S. as immigrants with nothing but the
shirts on their backs. They devoted themselves to the ways of their new home,
learning English, and in many cases became successful business owners. Asians
followed suit. They had a rougher ride, but also succeeded. Their children went
on to earn doctorates in physics and engineering. "White privilege" did not
stop them.
In American mass political culture, however,
self-reliance was replaced by a sense of entitlement:
government should take
care of us
. The Fabian-inspired New Deal has proven to have its dark side,
this being chronic dependency on government (i.e., on taxpayers) and, in
practice, has rendered ever more people vulnerable to being taken advantage of
by predatory corporations (Big Insurance, Big Pharma). Obvious example: health
care. One could write extensively on the dangers of too much comfort and
convenience, especially for those who grow up immersed in it, absent any sense
of the work that went into producing it. But that, too, is an essay for another
day.
But just note in passing - and
this is of
crucial importance
: before separating, one must consider that
the price
of separation and community self-determination in a world dominated by
globalized power elites is self-reliance at a community level
.
For example, speaking hypothetically, were a
state or group of states to secede from the U.S. today, they would relinquish
any right their people might have thought they had to Social Security,
Medicare, and so on. Relinquishing these systems of dependency would be part of
what they'd signed off on. What to put in place of those until they could
transition back to self-reliance would become a major issue, and quickly!
Moreover, "populist" economics requires
self-reliance because if "populists" are elected in a country, the economically
powerful pull their investments and/or remove their operations, understandably
fearful of the nationalization which happened in Chile when Salvador Allende
was elected president in 1970. When a Hugo Chávez becomes president in a
Venezuela, the corporate movers and shakers pull out. What happens: the economy
tanks. Jobs vanish. Distribution systems collapse. Goods become scarce; price
inflation soars. The "populists" are blamed for the debacle.
Without self-reliance at both an individual
and community level, especially after decades of living in a relatively
advancing civilization, it is a given that one's standard of living will drop.
Venezuela has learned this the hard way! In the real world, there are only two
ways of maintaining a given standard of living. One is to depend on others to
supply it. The other is to work to sustain it. One of these might be
sustainable in the long run. The other is not. Readers who have followed me
this far will be intelligent enough to discern which is which.
Seymour Hersh, America's most famous investigative reporter, has become persona non grata in the
American Propaganda Ministry that poses as a news media but only serves to protect the US government's
war lies. Among his many triumphs Hersh exposed the American My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu
Ghraib torture prison run by the Americans in Iraq. Today his investigative reports have to be published
in the London Review of Books or in the German Media.
From Hersh's latest investigative report, we learn that President Trump makes war decisions by
watching staged propaganda on TV. The White Helmets, a propaganda organization for jihadists and
the "Syrian opposition," found a gullible reception from the Western media for photographs and videos
of alleged victims of a Syrian Army sarin gas attack on civilians in Khan Sheikhoun. Trump saw the
photos on TV and despite being assured by US intelligence that there was no Syrian sarin gas attack,
ordered the US military to strike a Syrian base with Tomahawk missiles. Under international law this
strike was a war crime, and it was the first direct aggression against Syria by the US which previously
committed aggression via proxies called "the Syrian opposition."
Reporting on his sources, Hersh writes: "In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect
between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers
on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria's
attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts
of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4."
The belief that sarin gas was involved in the attack comes from what appears to be a gas cloud.
Hersh was informed by US military experts that sarin is oderless and invisible and makes no cloud.
What appears to have happened is that the explosion from the air attack on ISIS caused a series of
secondary explosions that produced a toxic cloud formed by fertilizers and chlorine disinfectants
that were stored in the building that was hit.
US officials spoke with Hersh, because they are distrubed that President Trump based a war decision
on TV propaganda and refused to listen to the detailed counter-assessments of his intelligence and
military services. A national security source told Hersh: "Everyone close to him knows his proclivity
for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts. He doesn't read anything and has no real
historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He's a risk-taker. He can accept
the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world,
lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong.
He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: 'Do it."'
Concerns about Trump's purely emotional reaction to TV propaganda persist. Hersh reports that
a senior national security adviser told him: "The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted
out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy" (the flare up of tensions between Syria, Russia and
America). The issue is, what if there's another false flag sarin attack credited to hated Syria?
Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And do not
think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to bomb again,
and harder. He's incapable of saying he made a mistake."
I do not doubt Sy Hersh's integrity. I accept that he has accurately reported what he was told
by US officials. My suspicions about this story do not have to do with Hersh. They have to do with
what Hersh was told.
Hersh's report puts Trump in a very bad light, and it puts the military/security complex, which
we know has been trying to destroy Trump, in a very good light. Moreover, the story strikes me as
inconsistent with the subsequent attack on the Syrian fighter-bomber by the US military. If the Tomahawk
attack on the Syrian base was unjustified, what justified downing a Syrian war plane? Did Trump order
this attack as well? If not, who did? Why?
If national security advisers gave Trump such excellent information about the alleged sarin gas
attack, completely disproving any such attack, why was he given such bad advice about shooting down
a Syrian war plane, or was it done outside of channels? The effect of the shootdown is to raise the
chance of a confrontation with Russia, because Russia's response apparently has been to declare a
no-fly zone over the area of Russian and Syrian operations.
How do we know that what Hersh was told was true? What if Trump was encouraged to order the Tomahawk
strike as a way of interjecting the US directly into the conflict? Both the US and Israel have powerful
reasons for wanting to overthrow Assad. However, ISIS, sent to do the job, has been defeated by Russia
and Syria. Unless Washington can somehow get directly involved, the war is over.
The story Hersh was given also serves to damn Trump while absolving the intelligence services.
Trump takes the hit for injecting the US directly into the conflict.
Hersh's story reads well, but it easily could be a false story planted on him. I am not saying
that the story is false, but unless we learn more, it could be.
What we do know is that the story given to Hersh by national security officials is inconsistent
with the June 26 White House announcement that the US has "identified potential preparations for
another chemical attack by the Assad regime." The White House does not have the capability to conduct
its own foreign intelligence gathering. The White House is informed by the national security and
intelligence agencies.
In the story given to Hersh, these officials are emphatic that not only were chemical weapons
removed from Syria, but also that Assad would not use them or be permitted by the Russians to use
them even if he had them. Moreover, Hersh reports that he was told that Russia fully informed the
US of the Syrian attack on ISIS in advance. The weapon was a guided bomb that Russia had suppied
to Syria. Therefore, it could not have been a chemical weapon.
As US national security officials made it clear to Hersh that they do not believe Syria did or
would use any chemical weapons, what is the source for the White House's announcement that preparations
for another chemical attack by the Assad regime have been identified?
Who lined up UN ambassador Nikki Haley and the UK Defence Minister Michael Fallon to be ready
with statements in support of the White House announcement? Haley says: "Any further attacks done
to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing
his own people." Fallon says: "we will support" future US action in response to the use of chemical
weapons in Syria.
How clear does an orchestration have to be before people are capable of recognizing the orchestration?
The intelligence agencies put out the story via Hersh that there were no chemical attacks, so
what attacks is Niki Haley speaking about?
A reasonable conclusion is that Washington's plan to use ISIS to overthrow Syria and then start
on Iran was derailed by Russian and Syrian military success against ISIS. The US then tried to partition
Syria by occupying part of it, but were out-manuevered by the Russians and Syrians. This left direct
US involvement as the only alternative to defeat. This direct US military involvement began with
the US attack on the Syrian military base and was followed by shooting down a Syrian war plane. The
next stage will be a US-staged false flag chemical attack or alleged chemical attack, and this false
flag, as has already been announced, will be the excuse for larger scale US military action against
Syria, which, unless the Russians abandon Syria, means conflict with Russia, Iran, and perhaps China.
" about how a military confrontation between Russia and
the United States would play out. "
Funny sentence,
Syria IS a military confrontation between USA and Russia,
as the Spanish Civil War was a military confrontation
between Germany and Italy, with tacit USA and GB support,
on the one hand, and the USSR on the other.
The USA rebellion against GB long ago also was a world
war, in the end the list of countries supporting the
Yankees became very long.
What we see at present in Syria is war between USA and
collaborators, as Israel, Germany, France and the
Netherlands, against Russia, Assad and Iran, with Turkey
sitting on the fence.
Both sides know that all out war will be the end of the
world, both sides do not want to give up.
So this may be going on indefinitely, the only solution
I see is that Trump creates a normal relationship with
Russia, thereafter they can divide the ME between them, as
Sykes and Picott already did in 1916.
In order to create a normal relationship with Russia Trump
first has to win his war with Deep State.
Three CNN journalists were fired, or resigned.
If this is the beginning of the end of CNN, I hope so, but
am not at all sure.
@Avery
{The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger
than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}
By many orders of
magnitude?
One order of magnitude is 10.
Two orders of magnitude is 100.
Many is .....what 1,000?
Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?
You don't actually believe that, do you?
Their leaders - both military and civilian - may be incompetent, corrupt,
treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc,
etc.....but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage,
nor determination.
One example: the "Black Hawk Down"/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.
Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper
support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and
determination. Fought like lions, in fact.
The notion that Russian pros are, quote,
'many orders of magnitude'
stronger in warrior quality (...and skills) is truly delusional on Saker's
part.
Agree, up to a point.
These debates are like those "which is better, AK or M-16 platform' .good for
amateurs.
Now, it is a fact that the West, since Iraq, hasn't fought
conventional war and even that was against much weaker opponent. COIN only.
Russians have fought decent conventional wars Georgia and Ukraine, against
similar opponent.
I'd hazard a guess that, on operational level, Russian Command and Control is
better than US.
The problem, for Russians, is quality of support/logistics and on tactical
level (from division to including a battalion or, better, battlegroup).
Anyway that's all actually besides the point.
I believe we'll be looking at 'border clashes' from '1984′, done by special
forces and contractors. Teams killing each other under the radar.
For a starter.
But, I believe, WHEN push comes to shove Russians will step back and mark
another line in sand.
And another.
The Empire will be pushing, carefully, and Russians will be retreating,
slowly ..
Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria it would
constitute the act of war and war is not limited to no theater of operations.
Considering USA huge superiority in this area I do not think Russia would
invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to strike where it is
more important for Russia security. USA anti missiles installations around
Russia borders would have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker
mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game for Russian missile
capabilities amptly shown in Syrian campaign and which imho are just a tip of
the iceberg. Hopefully it won't come to this because no one knows where it may
end.
"USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good
important targets."
Particularly because of that: "Putin: Foreign intel services support terrorist
groups on Russia's borders"
https://www.rt.com/news/394518-putin-foreign-spies-support-terrorism/
If
"US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria" the first response
should be towards Israel. The more clarity in this regard the better. There
should be the time of "harvest" for the ziocons.
the zio-deepstate must be showing Trump how easily they JFK'd JFK
I suspect that Trump doesn't want to play along with their 'seven countries'
narrative, and would prefer peace and prosperity as his legacy
but he's forced to play a razor's edge game as he slowly and methodically
inserts personnel loyal to the US vs. the deepstate, without triggering a
"heart attack" or however they'd do it.
If he can survive a year or two, and get his own people in, without causing
a full-on hot war with Russia, perhaps he can prevail. But this new development
is a very bad sign.
@Sergey Krieger
Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in
Syria it would constitute the act of war and war is not
limited to no theater of operations. Considering USA huge
superiority in this area I do not think Russia would
invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to
strike where it is more important for Russia security. USA
anti missiles installations around Russia borders would
have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker
mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game
for Russian missile capabilities amptly shown in Syrian
campaign and which imho are just a tip of the iceberg.
Hopefully it won't come to this because no one knows where
it may end.
Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S.
hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of
theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet
Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
Russia had better think twice and think again before going
down that road.
@Kilo 4/11
Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We
did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in
North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia
had better think twice and think again before going down that road.
Your comment brilliantly illustrates the problems that the rest of the world
has with Americans. Beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, Russia has every
right to be in Syria where the legitimate government has invited its help. The
USA has no right at all to set a single foot inside Syria without the Syrian
government's permission, which it emphatically does not have.
By attacking
Syria – as it has done persistently for the past six years and more, through US
forces, NATO forces, Israeli forces, Daesh and dozens of other alphabet
terrorist soup organizations – the USA has flagrantly disobeyed the UN Charter,
the Nuremberg Principles, the whole body of international law, and – more often
than not – the very US Constitution.
That any American doesn't know these things – or, knowing them, sees fit to
pretend he doesn't – is an appalling testimonty to American arrogance,
ignorance and stupidity.
@Priss Factor
How is that US and EU get to do this to a nation and still give sermons about
peace and human rights to the world?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cbBXk4iW5Q
When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with
total destruction.
US and EU totally wrecks a nation that did NOTHING to either, but they go
around promoting themselves as defenders of freedom and 'liberal global order'.
"When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with
total destruction".
When Japan launched a sneak surprise attack on the
Russian fleet in Port Arthur in 1904, it succeeded brilliantly. The Russian
East fleet was crippled and Russia had to resort to sending its Baltic fleet
halfway round the world – where it too was promptly sunk.
Theodore Roosevelt, who was US president at the time, was jubilant. He saw
the Japanese – whom he had recently dignified with the title of "honorary
Aryans" – as the essential US proxy for the conquest of Asia. And he hated the
Russians.
But what of FDR – who was 22 at the time, and such a fanatic about all
matters naval that he boasted of having collected thousands of books on the
subject? Are we to believe he was oblivious to the highly successful tactic of
launching a surprise naval attack before declaring war? Hardly.
Yet 37 years later, we are supposed to believe that, having deliberately
driven Japan into a corner with the specific intention of forcing it to declare
war, it never occurred to him that the Japanese – facing a far more powerful
enemy than Russia in 1904, whose main fleet was hanging out halfway across the
Pacific simply asking to be sunk – would use the same trick.
If so, I have a fleet of very old battleships to sell you.
@headrick
So what if the US does launch this massive air campaign, -- then what? Is the
US
army ready to occupy Syria - on the ground.- forever? IN 2006 Hezbollah kicked
the
Israeli's out of Lebanon border areas. Imagine the pain inflicted on a US
occupation
force who can't handle Afghanistan. And if the Russian air base is hit, they
can I believe
sink a US capital ship or two, and announce, any further direct action against
Russian forces in Syria will call for a full nuclear strategic response against
the US. Then what does the US do? Suck up the loss of carrier or Ageis warship,
of face world war III. This whole act would produce a domestic firestorm in the
US, and it would not be controllable. Shiite Allies in Bahrain would attack
US assets and Bases there and in Bahrain, and they would not need Russian
coaching to do it.
Hezbollah would probably begin to attacks on Israel and Israel knows how that
turned out. Just more pain for Team USA. There is no follow up strategy for
such a US air action against Syria/Russia/Iran. Just huge pain and an
ignominious back down -or upon unchecked escalation, world war III.
Air power, without a plan for follow up ground action, is worse than pointless.
It is suicidal. If the US just wants Chaos in the region, and thinks they can
find Muslim proxies to do the ground work, well that was the ISIS plan, and
soon there will be no ISIS, so how does the US find proxies on the ground to
occupy the country?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/29/the-next-world-war-wont-just-be-over-there/
"The Next World War Won't Just Be "Over There," by BILL WILLERS
" with every hostile American denigration of Russia, every aggressive push
against Russia's borders, every move that imperils Russia's place on the world
stage, the prospect of massive world war becomes increasingly plausible. And in
this world made so small by terrifying, sophisticated weaponry, any powerful
adversary of the US would make certain that "over there" was shared, so as to
become "over here" from the US point of view, with major east coast cities
certain to be prime targets. The Russians understand very well from agonizing
experience what modern, catastrophic war on one's homeland is like, while we in
the US do not, although we are on a path to find out. It is a path of our own
creation."
Sigh.
@Kilo 4/11
Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We
did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in
North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia
had better think twice and think again before going down that road.
when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam.
do you realize that the Soviet Union is dead and gone?
and that Russia today is acting like the only adult on the world's stage
with any respect for international law, (or what's left of it, since the
Z
US
has been waging illegal wars of aggression all over the planet, destroying
nation after nation, all based on lies).
Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet as a bulwark against the
rabid dog that is the ZUSA, slaughtering and displacing millions upon millions
of people even as its causing the permanent destruction of Europe and N.
America for all time.
what kind of future do your American grandchildren have in the ZUSA, as the
immigrants pour in and the future is bankrupted to slaughter people and destroy
nations that Israel doesn't like?
At least Putin's Russia is trying to protect some kind of future for the
Russian people and their progeny, as the ZUSA is like a drooling beast on the
world's stage, and doing all it can do destroy Western civilization in the
process, and your nation's (and grandchildren's) future with it.
how anyone here at the Unz Review could
still
look at Russia today
and see the Soviet Union!, is beyond me.
I'd hate to see the Trump presidency go down in the smoke of a Syrian/Russian
military conflict. Voters did not want the confrontation promised by Clinton
and voted for domestic issues such as re-industrialization, population
stability and so on. There are just way too many unknowns involved with this
potential clash for the US to risk intruding itself any more than it already
has. We really don't know how all these weapon systems would work out in an
actual war, short and intense or drawn out. Then there's the prospect of
Americans getting killed and taken prisoner in a very public way which would
drive them to ratchet things up yet higher. Same for the Russians. It's hard to
see what the American endgame really is. Perhaps it's just to deny Russia and
Iran any allies so perhaps chaos and the destruction of Syria as a state is a
goal rather than a result.
Putin is a legalistic moderate. Were Russia to suffer a humiliating defeat
directly from the Americans then it's probable he'll be succeeded by a
hardliner seeking to even the score. Wars always have unintended consequences
so we could end up having Cold War II for the next fifty years. Of course this
might be desired since it would tie Europe to the US due to this 'threat'.
@Kilo 4/11
No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING
TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope
that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a
motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.
"Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic
memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the
besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country
intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a
separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to
continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to
be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies.
And you talk of respecting international law!
Hold your horses, Kilo 4/12. Nobody needs Ukraine but ZUSA, for the supposedly
"defensive" purposes. Look at the amazing transformation of the "liberated"
Ukraine after the 2014 coup d'etat: The neo-Nazis are openly in the Ukrainian
government, Banderites parade Nazi collaborator Bandera in Kiev and L'viv; a
proposal for federalization of Ukraine (you know, federalism, similar to the
US) has been criminalized by Kiev government; a new prime-minister is certain
Mr. Groysman, and the index of Ukrainian corruption is staying stubbornly high.
Considering that the USSR had amassed the neighboring lands (Polish, Rumanian,
and Hungarian) to make the modern state of Ukraine, you need to decide whether
you want to continue with the Soviet tradition and keep the Soviet territories
or you should finally return the annexed territories to the proper owners.
It seems that you still didn't get it – in 2014, Ukraine had become a
protectorate of ZUSA. There is no independent Ukraine anymore.
This is what your thuggish government in Kiev has rejected:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States
@David
Great article. I would be interested to read some knowledgeable reflections on
the US Navy ship running into a Japanese cargo ship a week or so ago. It seems
that a lot of things would have to go wrong to make that possible, indicating
considerable rot in the US Navy. We haven't even heard of the ship's commander
losing his commission.
The container ship was going to Japan, not Japanese, Philippines flag, mainly
(or all) Philippino crew.
That ship ran imto the US ship, not vice versa.
However, according to Japanese news and the captain of the cargo ship, they
sounded the foghorn, tried signals, radio contact. Those giant ships are not at
all agile, not designed to be. Turning radii are huge.
From the sounds of the captain's injuries, he was asleep.
The interesting question is, what the fuck were the bridge duty officer(s)
and crew doing at the time, that they noticed nothing? Playing video games?
Engrossed in Twit or Faescesbook? Little party? Having or seeking sex?
Even if the reports of warnings from the cargo giant are false (which I
strongly doubt), if the bridge people were not behaving stupidly at the time,
they would have spotted it on radar and with eyes.
I did a quick search, as said earlier, must sleeping soon, I was finding the
captain's name, but not the name of whoever was in charge on the bridge.
Interesting.
It is such a shame for the seven dead, I am not a fan of US imperialism, but
I like many US people. Their deaths were very sad and pointless.
The clear and tragic incompetence on the bridge has some connection with the
Saker's article.
No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark. Russia is playing
its old imperial grand chessboard game and it matters not that Assad
"invited" him. Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this
"invitation"?
If you really believe that Russia would have any significant military
involvement in Syria today in the absence of its longstanding alliance with
that country and its consequent interest in protecting it from regime change
then you are either profoundly stupid or profoundly ignorant. Or both, of
course.
the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today,
starting with Putin
Again, you merely highlight your own lack of knowledge and pig-headed
refusal to recognise any change in the world from that (presumably) of your
youth.
And you talk of respecting international law!
The simple fact is that (as has been pointed out to you by several people)
Russia's military presence in Syria is perfectly legal, being at the invitation
of Syria's government, while the US has a long track record of contempt for
international law, from the attack on Yugoslavia to the invasion of Iraq and on
down to its recent murders of Syrian servicemen without even an attempt to
pretend to any legal justification.
No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark
No "stupidity" remark that I can see in the comment by Rurik to which you
claim to be replying, but your subsequent determination to insist that black is
in fact white on several points suggest he would have been justified in such a
personal criticism.
@Kilo 4/11
No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING
TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope
that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a
motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.
"Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic
memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the
besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country
intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a
separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to
continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to
be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies.
And you talk of respecting international law!
As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" blah blah blah
Looks like you could use a dose of Marine MG Butler's wisdom.
Knock yerself out toughie
" I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class
muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.
In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism."
@Kilo 4/11
Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We
did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in
North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia
had better think twice and think again before going down that road.
Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
The Russians are in Syria at the request of the sovereign nation of Syria.
The USA is in Syria as an illegal invading force providing support to Al-Qaeda
and ISIS.
I never would have guessed that the rot in the USA would have progressed to the
point where the Russians would be 100% in the right, both legally and morally,
and the USA would be 100% in the wrong, both legally and morally, but here we
are.
@Erebus
It seems to me that if the US delivers either an ultimatum, or a direct attack
on Russian assets in Syria, Russia's response will depend primarily on what it
believes its allies can and will deliver. The SAA, Hezbollah, and Iraqi PMUs
are already doing yeoman's service and probably can't do much more. In any
case, the boots-on-the-ground part would come some time after a stand-off
weapon exchange.
Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they're next if the American gambit
succeeds? Hard to tell. They could do a lot of damage to US assets around the
Gulf in very short order. Doha and Manama are but a few minutes away as the
missile flies, and those missiles could fly from anywhere along a mountainous
2500km coastline. If Iran can be counted on, the Russians can play much harder
ball than on their own.
The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously,
but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military
power rests, and they can do it almost instantly. There's some pain in it for
China, though not nearly as much as is sometimes assumed, but it would make any
military "victory" the USM might be dreaming of Pyrrhic. In addition to losing
a bunch of hardware and expensive personnel, they'd be staring at an economic
catastrophe. With that, they'd also be staring at the "Decline and Fall" moment
in the Zempire's timeline.
In its present domestic socio-political state, the US could simply fly apart
from the combined shock. From where I sit, that looks all but inevitable.
Be that all as it may, the Kremlin had surely gamed all the possible variations
to exhaustion before making their move into Syria. They committed, and since
Sept 31, 2015 they've been driving, not reacting to, events. They went in fully
committed to success, and they knew what ramifications their success could
trigger. They must have had viable contingency Plans A thru Z in place before
the ever cautious, meticulous Putin would have been confident enough that he
had all bases covered to sign off on it. I'm pretty sure that none of Plans A
thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started
barking.
Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to
sign off on it. I'm pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning
tail and running away when the American started barking.
Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by
Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be
no further option to fold under US presure that wouldn't be disastrous for
Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would
take it all the way if necessary.
But that doesn't mean, of course, that he and the Russians thought they
couldn't lose. Just that they thought the situation was serious enough to
justify such a move, which inevitably involves a degree of risk and the highest
of stakes.
What they did know, and still know, is that the costs to the US of even a
"victory" in Syria could be made high enough that the US leadership would
almost certainly blink first (rightly, given that the whole regime change
attempt in Syria involves no vital US interests and serves the purposes of
foreigners, wealthy business cliques and issue obsessives).
And so it has come to pass, so far, fortunately for humanity and for both
the US and Russia. Who knows if that would still be the case if Clinton had won
the election? Who really knows if it will remain the case under the highly
suspect Trump?
Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they're next if the American
gambit succeeds?
Difficult to predict in such a dramatic situation, but Iran obviously knows
that it is next in the firing line after Syria goes down and Hezbollah is
targeted (as the plans of the regime changers hope for). However Iran really
adds little to Russia's strength overall, though as you point out they can
contribute substantially in the region. On the other hand, Iran's involvement
would ensure far more enthusiastic cooperation with the US by Israel and Saudi
Arabia, who might otherwise balk at a direct attack on Russian forces.
The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution,
obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which
American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly.
I think the record suggests China would be far too cautious to intervene
directly in that way in such a situation, though I'm sure they would give
Russia plenty of indirect support.
@Sean
Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.
Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.
Yes that's right because history demonstrates clearly that appeasement and
passive acceptance is the
best
way to protect yourself against ongoing
lawless aggression by a major power. If nothing else, there's always that
faint, fading hope that if you are meek enough you might at least be left for
last, eh?
If only the Russians had had the patience and strength of mind to continue
with the wisdom of the Yeltsin years, in kowtowing to the US declaration of a
global US sphere of influence and a universal US right, nay duty, of regime
changing interventionism
This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns,
acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no
rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational
analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can
answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems
to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power ("full
spectrum dominance" – not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US
policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck)
To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to
the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as
the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this
sucker could go any way, any time.
makes a basic mistake, he assumes that the [Americans] will act like
idiots and fight the kind of war the [Russia] would want to impose upon
them.
And he does so in nearly every article he writes. It would be amusing except
for quotes like this.
There are good points to be made. The US will have certain habits that must
be deliberately deviated from. The US deploys too much and exposes its fighting
style too much.
But the Saker is silly, Capital S, silly, to think that the US would fight
Russia the way he imagines it.
Just the same: we must not fight. Russia and the US, must, not fight. It
must not happen.
The silliest thing is all the imagining of it. We should steel all our
efforts to assure this never, ever happens.
IMO, a massive US attack to gain air superiority in Syria is completely
unrealistic for the following reasons among others:
1. If an aircraft carrier
takes part in the attack, if could be sunk by the Russians with moral
justification. Sinking an aircraft carrier would cause the dollar to plummet by
revealing the phony nature of American military might.
2. The Russians could lose their entire Syrian forces and the larger
military balance would not be affected in the short run, nor would the Russian
regime be threatened by internal revolution. If the US lost significant numbers
of aircraft, especially F-35's and/or F-22's, it would be a US disaster. There
would be no hiding from the US public that we are at war for no discernable
purpose. The sleepwalking goyim could very well take their eyes off Kim
Kardashian's ass and the Trump circus and wake up. The political effects are
utterly unpredictable.
3. Russia and China could announce an international gold standard,
effectively removing a major source of US income via dollar creation. With US
inflation raging, military cutbacks would ensue, kicking off a downward spiral
for the ZUSA empire.
4. War in Syria would precipitate a US financial crisis, because US markets
are held aloft with smoke and mirrors. We have runaway federal debt, states
about to default, a pension crisis, and a consumer debt crisis. When this thing
blows, the 2000 crash will look like a picnic. Unemployment will skyrocket from
an already high level, and the deep state will be fighting off multiple Occupy
Wall Street-like movements. Sure hope those new surveillance tools work well,
'cause the deep state is gonna need 'em.
Of course, empires often show the brains of a dinosaur. Did the Ottoman,
Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German empires plan to disappear when they
entered WWI?
@sad and scared
This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns,
acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no
rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational
analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can
answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems
to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power ("full
spectrum dominance" - not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US
policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck)
To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to
the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as
the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this
sucker could go any way, any time.
What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer
that.
Maybe .just .CONSTANT low level chaos as it is now.
Just to keep that region unstable and unusable for anyone.
Serves a couple of purposes, one of them is weakening Russia.
What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going?
The same.
But even with Assad not going, just keeping things as they are now is good for
The Empire.
Or, it is better for The Empire than it is for Russia.
Or it is less worse for The Empire than it is for Russia.
he didn't do much damage to that Syrian airfield
he bombed and he warned everyone over there that he was going to do it, and by
doing so, he completely shut up the snake-pit, from John McBloodstain to Chucky
Schumer to the length and breath of the zio-msm.
I sense he's trying to play them, and it seems at times like he's playing
them like a fine fiddle.
Saying 'Assad has to go' will cause tingles and chills up their legs, and
cut him some slack with the Republicucks, so perhaps he can get more of his
people appointed.
So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin, they can pretend like
they're enemies, while mollifying the Fiend and its minions as ISIS is routed
and Syria's sovereignty and border integrity becomes more and more a reality on
the ground.
At least that's my hope. Of course I could be wrong.
So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin
Putin receives former
U.S. diplomat Kissinger in Kremlin
Could anyone kindly explain how the Israeli planes manage to avoid the Syrian
Pantsirs and S-300s every time they enter Syrian air space and take out some
target? (and one presumes that the Syrians must be waiting for the next Israeli
incursion 24×7).
Girly man Sean Spicer's pronouncement that the U.S. possesses "intelligence" to
the effect that Assad is planning a chemical attack on innocents is just a
bogus pretext for war. It's Iraqi weapons of mass destruction all over again.
It's designed to soften Americans up for greater illegal and unilateral
military action in Syria. And if my fellow countrymen fall for it yet again
just because they're enamored with Trump's hollow promises and circus like
rallies then I will have absolutely no sympathy for them when the economy
implodes and if somehow the war comes to U.S. soil.
Gee, who gets all the refugees when we bring hell to Syria? Not Saudi Arabia
or Israel. Oh no, princess Ivanka will see to it that we get our share just as
long as they're nowhere near her, Jared or any other Manhattan millionaire
liberal.
Putin should announce the sale of long range nuclear missiles to the
People's Republic of N. Korea. Hopefully this would give Nimrata Haley and
Trump aneurysms along with the rest of the American likudniks. Then he should
follow up and begin supplying the Taliban with surface to air missile
batteries, anti-drone technology and advanced weaponry for combat operations.
@Sean
Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.
NO! The Zios-Anglos made the mistake of siding with the terrorists in Syria.
" about how a military confrontation between Russia and
the United States would play out. "
Funny sentence,
Syria IS a military confrontation between USA and Russia,
as the Spanish Civil War was a military confrontation
between Germany and Italy, with tacit USA and GB support,
on the one hand, and the USSR on the other.
The USA rebellion against GB long ago also was a world
war, in the end the list of countries supporting the
Yankees became very long.
What we see at present in Syria is war between USA and
collaborators, as Israel, Germany, France and the
Netherlands, against Russia, Assad and Iran, with Turkey
sitting on the fence.
Both sides know that all out war will be the end of the
world, both sides do not want to give up.
So this may be going on indefinitely, the only solution
I see is that Trump creates a normal relationship with
Russia, thereafter they can divide the ME between them, as
Sykes and Picott already did in 1916.
In order to create a normal relationship with Russia Trump
first has to win his war with Deep State.
Three CNN journalists were fired, or resigned.
If this is the beginning of the end of CNN, I hope so, but
am not at all sure.
@Avery
{The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger
than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}
By many orders of
magnitude?
One order of magnitude is 10.
Two orders of magnitude is 100.
Many is .....what 1,000?
Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?
You don't actually believe that, do you?
Their leaders - both military and civilian - may be incompetent, corrupt,
treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc,
etc.....but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage,
nor determination.
One example: the "Black Hawk Down"/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.
Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper
support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and
determination. Fought like lions, in fact.
The notion that Russian pros are, quote,
'many orders of magnitude'
stronger in warrior quality (...and skills) is truly delusional on Saker's
part.
Agree, up to a point.
These debates are like those "which is better, AK or M-16 platform' .good for
amateurs.
Now, it is a fact that the West, since Iraq, hasn't fought
conventional war and even that was against much weaker opponent. COIN only.
Russians have fought decent conventional wars Georgia and Ukraine, against
similar opponent.
I'd hazard a guess that, on operational level, Russian Command and Control is
better than US.
The problem, for Russians, is quality of support/logistics and on tactical
level (from division to including a battalion or, better, battlegroup).
Anyway that's all actually besides the point.
I believe we'll be looking at 'border clashes' from '1984′, done by special
forces and contractors. Teams killing each other under the radar.
For a starter.
But, I believe, WHEN push comes to shove Russians will step back and mark
another line in sand.
And another.
The Empire will be pushing, carefully, and Russians will be retreating,
slowly ..
Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria it would
constitute the act of war and war is not limited to no theater of operations.
Considering USA huge superiority in this area I do not think Russia would
invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to strike where it is
more important for Russia security. USA anti missiles installations around
Russia borders would have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker
mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game for Russian missile
capabilities amptly shown in Syrian campaign and which imho are just a tip of
the iceberg. Hopefully it won't come to this because no one knows where it may
end.
"USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good
important targets."
Particularly because of that: "Putin: Foreign intel services support terrorist
groups on Russia's borders"
https://www.rt.com/news/394518-putin-foreign-spies-support-terrorism/
If
"US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria" the first response
should be towards Israel. The more clarity in this regard the better. There
should be the time of "harvest" for the ziocons.
the zio-deepstate must be showing Trump how easily they JFK'd JFK
I suspect that Trump doesn't want to play along with their 'seven countries'
narrative, and would prefer peace and prosperity as his legacy
but he's forced to play a razor's edge game as he slowly and methodically
inserts personnel loyal to the US vs. the deepstate, without triggering a
"heart attack" or however they'd do it.
If he can survive a year or two, and get his own people in, without causing
a full-on hot war with Russia, perhaps he can prevail. But this new development
is a very bad sign.
@Sergey Krieger
Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in
Syria it would constitute the act of war and war is not
limited to no theater of operations. Considering USA huge
superiority in this area I do not think Russia would
invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to
strike where it is more important for Russia security. USA
anti missiles installations around Russia borders would
have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker
mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game
for Russian missile capabilities amptly shown in Syrian
campaign and which imho are just a tip of the iceberg.
Hopefully it won't come to this because no one knows where
it may end.
Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S.
hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of
theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet
Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
Russia had better think twice and think again before going
down that road.
@Kilo 4/11
Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We
did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in
North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia
had better think twice and think again before going down that road.
Your comment brilliantly illustrates the problems that the rest of the world
has with Americans. Beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, Russia has every
right to be in Syria where the legitimate government has invited its help. The
USA has no right at all to set a single foot inside Syria without the Syrian
government's permission, which it emphatically does not have.
By attacking
Syria – as it has done persistently for the past six years and more, through US
forces, NATO forces, Israeli forces, Daesh and dozens of other alphabet
terrorist soup organizations – the USA has flagrantly disobeyed the UN Charter,
the Nuremberg Principles, the whole body of international law, and – more often
than not – the very US Constitution.
That any American doesn't know these things – or, knowing them, sees fit to
pretend he doesn't – is an appalling testimonty to American arrogance,
ignorance and stupidity.
@Priss Factor
How is that US and EU get to do this to a nation and still give sermons about
peace and human rights to the world?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cbBXk4iW5Q
When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with
total destruction.
US and EU totally wrecks a nation that did NOTHING to either, but they go
around promoting themselves as defenders of freedom and 'liberal global order'.
"When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with
total destruction".
When Japan launched a sneak surprise attack on the
Russian fleet in Port Arthur in 1904, it succeeded brilliantly. The Russian
East fleet was crippled and Russia had to resort to sending its Baltic fleet
halfway round the world – where it too was promptly sunk.
Theodore Roosevelt, who was US president at the time, was jubilant. He saw
the Japanese – whom he had recently dignified with the title of "honorary
Aryans" – as the essential US proxy for the conquest of Asia. And he hated the
Russians.
But what of FDR – who was 22 at the time, and such a fanatic about all
matters naval that he boasted of having collected thousands of books on the
subject? Are we to believe he was oblivious to the highly successful tactic of
launching a surprise naval attack before declaring war? Hardly.
Yet 37 years later, we are supposed to believe that, having deliberately
driven Japan into a corner with the specific intention of forcing it to declare
war, it never occurred to him that the Japanese – facing a far more powerful
enemy than Russia in 1904, whose main fleet was hanging out halfway across the
Pacific simply asking to be sunk – would use the same trick.
If so, I have a fleet of very old battleships to sell you.
@headrick
So what if the US does launch this massive air campaign, -- then what? Is the
US
army ready to occupy Syria - on the ground.- forever? IN 2006 Hezbollah kicked
the
Israeli's out of Lebanon border areas. Imagine the pain inflicted on a US
occupation
force who can't handle Afghanistan. And if the Russian air base is hit, they
can I believe
sink a US capital ship or two, and announce, any further direct action against
Russian forces in Syria will call for a full nuclear strategic response against
the US. Then what does the US do? Suck up the loss of carrier or Ageis warship,
of face world war III. This whole act would produce a domestic firestorm in the
US, and it would not be controllable. Shiite Allies in Bahrain would attack
US assets and Bases there and in Bahrain, and they would not need Russian
coaching to do it.
Hezbollah would probably begin to attacks on Israel and Israel knows how that
turned out. Just more pain for Team USA. There is no follow up strategy for
such a US air action against Syria/Russia/Iran. Just huge pain and an
ignominious back down -or upon unchecked escalation, world war III.
Air power, without a plan for follow up ground action, is worse than pointless.
It is suicidal. If the US just wants Chaos in the region, and thinks they can
find Muslim proxies to do the ground work, well that was the ISIS plan, and
soon there will be no ISIS, so how does the US find proxies on the ground to
occupy the country?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/29/the-next-world-war-wont-just-be-over-there/
"The Next World War Won't Just Be "Over There," by BILL WILLERS
" with every hostile American denigration of Russia, every aggressive push
against Russia's borders, every move that imperils Russia's place on the world
stage, the prospect of massive world war becomes increasingly plausible. And in
this world made so small by terrifying, sophisticated weaponry, any powerful
adversary of the US would make certain that "over there" was shared, so as to
become "over here" from the US point of view, with major east coast cities
certain to be prime targets. The Russians understand very well from agonizing
experience what modern, catastrophic war on one's homeland is like, while we in
the US do not, although we are on a path to find out. It is a path of our own
creation."
Sigh.
@Kilo 4/11
Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We
did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in
North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia
had better think twice and think again before going down that road.
when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam.
do you realize that the Soviet Union is dead and gone?
and that Russia today is acting like the only adult on the world's stage
with any respect for international law, (or what's left of it, since the
Z
US
has been waging illegal wars of aggression all over the planet, destroying
nation after nation, all based on lies).
Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet as a bulwark against the
rabid dog that is the ZUSA, slaughtering and displacing millions upon millions
of people even as its causing the permanent destruction of Europe and N.
America for all time.
what kind of future do your American grandchildren have in the ZUSA, as the
immigrants pour in and the future is bankrupted to slaughter people and destroy
nations that Israel doesn't like?
At least Putin's Russia is trying to protect some kind of future for the
Russian people and their progeny, as the ZUSA is like a drooling beast on the
world's stage, and doing all it can do destroy Western civilization in the
process, and your nation's (and grandchildren's) future with it.
how anyone here at the Unz Review could
still
look at Russia today
and see the Soviet Union!, is beyond me.
I'd hate to see the Trump presidency go down in the smoke of a Syrian/Russian
military conflict. Voters did not want the confrontation promised by Clinton
and voted for domestic issues such as re-industrialization, population
stability and so on. There are just way too many unknowns involved with this
potential clash for the US to risk intruding itself any more than it already
has. We really don't know how all these weapon systems would work out in an
actual war, short and intense or drawn out. Then there's the prospect of
Americans getting killed and taken prisoner in a very public way which would
drive them to ratchet things up yet higher. Same for the Russians. It's hard to
see what the American endgame really is. Perhaps it's just to deny Russia and
Iran any allies so perhaps chaos and the destruction of Syria as a state is a
goal rather than a result.
Putin is a legalistic moderate. Were Russia to suffer a humiliating defeat
directly from the Americans then it's probable he'll be succeeded by a
hardliner seeking to even the score. Wars always have unintended consequences
so we could end up having Cold War II for the next fifty years. Of course this
might be desired since it would tie Europe to the US due to this 'threat'.
@Kilo 4/11
No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING
TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope
that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a
motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.
"Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic
memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the
besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country
intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a
separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to
continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to
be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies.
And you talk of respecting international law!
Hold your horses, Kilo 4/12. Nobody needs Ukraine but ZUSA, for the supposedly
"defensive" purposes. Look at the amazing transformation of the "liberated"
Ukraine after the 2014 coup d'etat: The neo-Nazis are openly in the Ukrainian
government, Banderites parade Nazi collaborator Bandera in Kiev and L'viv; a
proposal for federalization of Ukraine (you know, federalism, similar to the
US) has been criminalized by Kiev government; a new prime-minister is certain
Mr. Groysman, and the index of Ukrainian corruption is staying stubbornly high.
Considering that the USSR had amassed the neighboring lands (Polish, Rumanian,
and Hungarian) to make the modern state of Ukraine, you need to decide whether
you want to continue with the Soviet tradition and keep the Soviet territories
or you should finally return the annexed territories to the proper owners.
It seems that you still didn't get it – in 2014, Ukraine had become a
protectorate of ZUSA. There is no independent Ukraine anymore.
This is what your thuggish government in Kiev has rejected:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States
@David
Great article. I would be interested to read some knowledgeable reflections on
the US Navy ship running into a Japanese cargo ship a week or so ago. It seems
that a lot of things would have to go wrong to make that possible, indicating
considerable rot in the US Navy. We haven't even heard of the ship's commander
losing his commission.
The container ship was going to Japan, not Japanese, Philippines flag, mainly
(or all) Philippino crew.
That ship ran imto the US ship, not vice versa.
However, according to Japanese news and the captain of the cargo ship, they
sounded the foghorn, tried signals, radio contact. Those giant ships are not at
all agile, not designed to be. Turning radii are huge.
From the sounds of the captain's injuries, he was asleep.
The interesting question is, what the fuck were the bridge duty officer(s)
and crew doing at the time, that they noticed nothing? Playing video games?
Engrossed in Twit or Faescesbook? Little party? Having or seeking sex?
Even if the reports of warnings from the cargo giant are false (which I
strongly doubt), if the bridge people were not behaving stupidly at the time,
they would have spotted it on radar and with eyes.
I did a quick search, as said earlier, must sleeping soon, I was finding the
captain's name, but not the name of whoever was in charge on the bridge.
Interesting.
It is such a shame for the seven dead, I am not a fan of US imperialism, but
I like many US people. Their deaths were very sad and pointless.
The clear and tragic incompetence on the bridge has some connection with the
Saker's article.
No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark. Russia is playing
its old imperial grand chessboard game and it matters not that Assad
"invited" him. Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this
"invitation"?
If you really believe that Russia would have any significant military
involvement in Syria today in the absence of its longstanding alliance with
that country and its consequent interest in protecting it from regime change
then you are either profoundly stupid or profoundly ignorant. Or both, of
course.
the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today,
starting with Putin
Again, you merely highlight your own lack of knowledge and pig-headed
refusal to recognise any change in the world from that (presumably) of your
youth.
And you talk of respecting international law!
The simple fact is that (as has been pointed out to you by several people)
Russia's military presence in Syria is perfectly legal, being at the invitation
of Syria's government, while the US has a long track record of contempt for
international law, from the attack on Yugoslavia to the invasion of Iraq and on
down to its recent murders of Syrian servicemen without even an attempt to
pretend to any legal justification.
No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark
No "stupidity" remark that I can see in the comment by Rurik to which you
claim to be replying, but your subsequent determination to insist that black is
in fact white on several points suggest he would have been justified in such a
personal criticism.
@Kilo 4/11
No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING
TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope
that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a
motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.
"Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic
memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the
besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country
intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a
separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to
continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to
be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies.
And you talk of respecting international law!
As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" blah blah blah
Looks like you could use a dose of Marine MG Butler's wisdom.
Knock yerself out toughie
" I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class
muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.
In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism."
@Kilo 4/11
Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We
did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in
North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia
had better think twice and think again before going down that road.
Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.
The Russians are in Syria at the request of the sovereign nation of Syria.
The USA is in Syria as an illegal invading force providing support to Al-Qaeda
and ISIS.
I never would have guessed that the rot in the USA would have progressed to the
point where the Russians would be 100% in the right, both legally and morally,
and the USA would be 100% in the wrong, both legally and morally, but here we
are.
@Erebus
It seems to me that if the US delivers either an ultimatum, or a direct attack
on Russian assets in Syria, Russia's response will depend primarily on what it
believes its allies can and will deliver. The SAA, Hezbollah, and Iraqi PMUs
are already doing yeoman's service and probably can't do much more. In any
case, the boots-on-the-ground part would come some time after a stand-off
weapon exchange.
Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they're next if the American gambit
succeeds? Hard to tell. They could do a lot of damage to US assets around the
Gulf in very short order. Doha and Manama are but a few minutes away as the
missile flies, and those missiles could fly from anywhere along a mountainous
2500km coastline. If Iran can be counted on, the Russians can play much harder
ball than on their own.
The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously,
but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military
power rests, and they can do it almost instantly. There's some pain in it for
China, though not nearly as much as is sometimes assumed, but it would make any
military "victory" the USM might be dreaming of Pyrrhic. In addition to losing
a bunch of hardware and expensive personnel, they'd be staring at an economic
catastrophe. With that, they'd also be staring at the "Decline and Fall" moment
in the Zempire's timeline.
In its present domestic socio-political state, the US could simply fly apart
from the combined shock. From where I sit, that looks all but inevitable.
Be that all as it may, the Kremlin had surely gamed all the possible variations
to exhaustion before making their move into Syria. They committed, and since
Sept 31, 2015 they've been driving, not reacting to, events. They went in fully
committed to success, and they knew what ramifications their success could
trigger. They must have had viable contingency Plans A thru Z in place before
the ever cautious, meticulous Putin would have been confident enough that he
had all bases covered to sign off on it. I'm pretty sure that none of Plans A
thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started
barking.
Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to
sign off on it. I'm pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning
tail and running away when the American started barking.
Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by
Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be
no further option to fold under US presure that wouldn't be disastrous for
Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would
take it all the way if necessary.
But that doesn't mean, of course, that he and the Russians thought they
couldn't lose. Just that they thought the situation was serious enough to
justify such a move, which inevitably involves a degree of risk and the highest
of stakes.
What they did know, and still know, is that the costs to the US of even a
"victory" in Syria could be made high enough that the US leadership would
almost certainly blink first (rightly, given that the whole regime change
attempt in Syria involves no vital US interests and serves the purposes of
foreigners, wealthy business cliques and issue obsessives).
And so it has come to pass, so far, fortunately for humanity and for both
the US and Russia. Who knows if that would still be the case if Clinton had won
the election? Who really knows if it will remain the case under the highly
suspect Trump?
Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they're next if the American
gambit succeeds?
Difficult to predict in such a dramatic situation, but Iran obviously knows
that it is next in the firing line after Syria goes down and Hezbollah is
targeted (as the plans of the regime changers hope for). However Iran really
adds little to Russia's strength overall, though as you point out they can
contribute substantially in the region. On the other hand, Iran's involvement
would ensure far more enthusiastic cooperation with the US by Israel and Saudi
Arabia, who might otherwise balk at a direct attack on Russian forces.
The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution,
obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which
American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly.
I think the record suggests China would be far too cautious to intervene
directly in that way in such a situation, though I'm sure they would give
Russia plenty of indirect support.
@Sean
Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.
Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.
Yes that's right because history demonstrates clearly that appeasement and
passive acceptance is the
best
way to protect yourself against ongoing
lawless aggression by a major power. If nothing else, there's always that
faint, fading hope that if you are meek enough you might at least be left for
last, eh?
If only the Russians had had the patience and strength of mind to continue
with the wisdom of the Yeltsin years, in kowtowing to the US declaration of a
global US sphere of influence and a universal US right, nay duty, of regime
changing interventionism
This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns,
acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no
rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational
analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can
answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems
to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power ("full
spectrum dominance" – not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US
policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck)
To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to
the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as
the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this
sucker could go any way, any time.
makes a basic mistake, he assumes that the [Americans] will act like
idiots and fight the kind of war the [Russia] would want to impose upon
them.
And he does so in nearly every article he writes. It would be amusing except
for quotes like this.
There are good points to be made. The US will have certain habits that must
be deliberately deviated from. The US deploys too much and exposes its fighting
style too much.
But the Saker is silly, Capital S, silly, to think that the US would fight
Russia the way he imagines it.
Just the same: we must not fight. Russia and the US, must, not fight. It
must not happen.
The silliest thing is all the imagining of it. We should steel all our
efforts to assure this never, ever happens.
IMO, a massive US attack to gain air superiority in Syria is completely
unrealistic for the following reasons among others:
1. If an aircraft carrier
takes part in the attack, if could be sunk by the Russians with moral
justification. Sinking an aircraft carrier would cause the dollar to plummet by
revealing the phony nature of American military might.
2. The Russians could lose their entire Syrian forces and the larger
military balance would not be affected in the short run, nor would the Russian
regime be threatened by internal revolution. If the US lost significant numbers
of aircraft, especially F-35's and/or F-22's, it would be a US disaster. There
would be no hiding from the US public that we are at war for no discernable
purpose. The sleepwalking goyim could very well take their eyes off Kim
Kardashian's ass and the Trump circus and wake up. The political effects are
utterly unpredictable.
3. Russia and China could announce an international gold standard,
effectively removing a major source of US income via dollar creation. With US
inflation raging, military cutbacks would ensue, kicking off a downward spiral
for the ZUSA empire.
4. War in Syria would precipitate a US financial crisis, because US markets
are held aloft with smoke and mirrors. We have runaway federal debt, states
about to default, a pension crisis, and a consumer debt crisis. When this thing
blows, the 2000 crash will look like a picnic. Unemployment will skyrocket from
an already high level, and the deep state will be fighting off multiple Occupy
Wall Street-like movements. Sure hope those new surveillance tools work well,
'cause the deep state is gonna need 'em.
Of course, empires often show the brains of a dinosaur. Did the Ottoman,
Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German empires plan to disappear when they
entered WWI?
@sad and scared
This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns,
acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no
rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational
analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can
answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems
to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power ("full
spectrum dominance" - not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US
policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck)
To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to
the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as
the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this
sucker could go any way, any time.
What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer
that.
Maybe .just .CONSTANT low level chaos as it is now.
Just to keep that region unstable and unusable for anyone.
Serves a couple of purposes, one of them is weakening Russia.
What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going?
The same.
But even with Assad not going, just keeping things as they are now is good for
The Empire.
Or, it is better for The Empire than it is for Russia.
Or it is less worse for The Empire than it is for Russia.
he didn't do much damage to that Syrian airfield
he bombed and he warned everyone over there that he was going to do it, and by
doing so, he completely shut up the snake-pit, from John McBloodstain to Chucky
Schumer to the length and breath of the zio-msm.
I sense he's trying to play them, and it seems at times like he's playing
them like a fine fiddle.
Saying 'Assad has to go' will cause tingles and chills up their legs, and
cut him some slack with the Republicucks, so perhaps he can get more of his
people appointed.
So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin, they can pretend like
they're enemies, while mollifying the Fiend and its minions as ISIS is routed
and Syria's sovereignty and border integrity becomes more and more a reality on
the ground.
At least that's my hope. Of course I could be wrong.
So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin
Putin receives former
U.S. diplomat Kissinger in Kremlin
Could anyone kindly explain how the Israeli planes manage to avoid the Syrian
Pantsirs and S-300s every time they enter Syrian air space and take out some
target? (and one presumes that the Syrians must be waiting for the next Israeli
incursion 24×7).
Girly man Sean Spicer's pronouncement that the U.S. possesses "intelligence" to
the effect that Assad is planning a chemical attack on innocents is just a
bogus pretext for war. It's Iraqi weapons of mass destruction all over again.
It's designed to soften Americans up for greater illegal and unilateral
military action in Syria. And if my fellow countrymen fall for it yet again
just because they're enamored with Trump's hollow promises and circus like
rallies then I will have absolutely no sympathy for them when the economy
implodes and if somehow the war comes to U.S. soil.
Gee, who gets all the refugees when we bring hell to Syria? Not Saudi Arabia
or Israel. Oh no, princess Ivanka will see to it that we get our share just as
long as they're nowhere near her, Jared or any other Manhattan millionaire
liberal.
Putin should announce the sale of long range nuclear missiles to the
People's Republic of N. Korea. Hopefully this would give Nimrata Haley and
Trump aneurysms along with the rest of the American likudniks. Then he should
follow up and begin supplying the Taliban with surface to air missile
batteries, anti-drone technology and advanced weaponry for combat operations.
@Sean
Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.
NO! The Zios-Anglos made the mistake of siding with the terrorists in Syria.
The only thing that Russia wanted from Ukraine is not to allow themselves to become threat to Russia by joining NATO. Ukraine,
having wasted all other options for normal development, couldn't resist taking the offer of cashing in on becoming a threat
to Russia. Ukraine tries to justify this based on some past historical grievances from the 1930's.
What total lunacy and hippocracy. Do I really need to remind you that before 2014 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO membership
was not a popular option for most Ukrainians. But now, after the deceitful land grab by Russia of Crimea and three years of proxy
directed war in Donbas orchestrated in Moscow, most Ukrainians now look favorably towards NATO membership. Latest polls show that
55.9% o Ukrainians now favor NATO integration (I think that pre 2014 it was less than 15%) and 66.4% now favor EU integration.
You reap what you sew, Putinista fanboys. Bye, bye 'NovoRossiya'! http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2017/06/17/7147228/ The engine
that drove the US into an economic power house was decades of violating free market principles
The engine that drove German economic success was being bailed out by the US right after WW2..
Considering that Russia was gang-raped by Bill Clinton's Oligarch friends .a gang rape that caused a demographic collapse of
the Russian population .Russia's subsequent recovery has been miraculous
OOPS These comments were meant for Priss Factor not Mr. Hack
@annamaria
In case you did not have time to look for the widely available information on
how the US has been supplying certain "forces" in Syria with various weaponry,
including anti aircraft weapons, here is a summary: "How America Armed
Terrorists in Syria: Another Middle East debacle" By GARETH PORTER • June 22,
2017
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/
"The Obama administration's Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest
that was supposed to be the touchstone of the "Global War on Terrorism"-the
eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates... In October 2012, U.S.
officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times
that "most" of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in
Syria with U.S. logistical assistance during the previous year had gone to
"hardline Islamic jihadists"- obviously meaning al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, al
Nusra. ...
In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al
Nusra Front promptly showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment
they had captured from it. ... But that wasn't the only way for al Nusra Front
to benefit from the CIA's largesse.
The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance
were not part of the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib
the U.S.-led operations room for Syria in southern Turkey signaled to the
CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate in the campaign
to consolidate control over the rest of the province. According to Lister, the
British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both
jihadist and other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan
al haq brigade and Division 13, did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra
Front without any move by the CIA to cut them off. As the Idlib offensive
began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers,
and they now used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks.
That was the beginning of a new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to
support an alliance between "relatively moderate" groups and the al Nusra
Front."
And more of the same
CIA judged to be "relatively moderate" anti-Assad groups
These CIA
assessments are always loaded with weasel words and half truths like some child
admitting he stuck his hand in the cookie jar but didn't actually take one. It
is all designed as a silly whitewash of their actions. Admit just enough but
stop short of something illegal.
When the CIA finally had to admit they were aware of the drug dealing during
the Reagan administration by the Contras, they came out with some lame report
where they admitted they were aware that some elements were trafficking drugs
but the CIA wasn't directly involved. Of course, the pilots flying the arms in
and drugs out all had CIA connections. The DEA also never made any significant
arrests.
The CIA knows there are no "relatively moderates".
What is happening in Syria is an Extreme Steroidal version of what is happening
in the West.
Westerners are told 'diversity' and 'inclusion' are highest values.
Well, Syria wouldn't have been such a powder keg if it weren't so diverse
filled with so many resentments. And it was the weakening of borders and
'inclusion' of Jihadis and foreign military that made things much worse. So,
much for blessings of diversity and inclusion(euphemism for intrusion and
invasion).
Two sicknesses of the globalized world: Diversease and Incluenza.
Those of us who are highly critical of Israel's ability to manipulate U.S. foreign policy frequently note how sites that permit
comments on our articles are almost immediately inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar in both tone and substance.
Given that it is unlikely that large numbers of visitors to the sites read the offending piece more-or-less simultaneously, react
similarly to its content, and then go on to express their disgust in very similar language, many of us have come to the conclusion
that the Israeli government or some of the groups dedicated to advancing Israeli interests turn loose supporters who are dedicated
to combating and refuting anything and everything that casts Israel in a negative light.
The fact is that Israel is extremely active in an enterprise that falls in the gray area between covert operations and overt governmental
activity. Many governments seek to respond to negative commentary in the media, but they normally do it openly with an ambassador
or press officer countering criticism by sending in a letter, writing an op-ed, or appearing on a talk show. Such activity is generally
described as public diplomacy when it is done openly by a recognized government official and the information itself is both plausible
and verifiable, at least within reasonable limits. Israel does indeed do that, but it also engages in other activities that are not
so transparent and which are aimed at spreading false information.
When an intelligence organization seeks to influence opinion by creating and deliberately circulating "false news," it is referred
to as a "disinformation operation."
But Israel has refined the art of something that expands upon that, what might be referred to more accurately as "perception management"
or "influence operations" in which it only very rarely shows its hand overtly, in many cases paying students as part-time bloggers
or exploiting diaspora Jews as volunteers to get its message out. The practice is so systemic, involving recruitment, training, Foreign
Ministry-prepared information sheets, and internet alerts to potential targets, that it is frequently described by its Hebrew name,
hasbara, which means literally "public explanation." It is essentially an internet-focused "information war" that parallels and supports
the military action whenever Israel enters into conflict with any of its neighbors or seeks to influence public opinion in the United
States and Europe.
... ... ...
The Israeli Foreign Ministry has sent a letter out to a number of pro-Israel organizations emphasizing the "importance of the
internet as the new battleground for Israel's image." Haaretz reported in 2013 how Prime Minister Netanyahu's office collaborated
with the National Union of Israeli Students to establish "covert units" at the seven national universities to be structured in a
"semi-military" fashion and organized in situation rooms. Students are paid as much as $2,000 monthly to work the online targets.
The serious collaboration between government and volunteers actually began with Operation Cast Lead in early 2009, an incursion
into Gaza that killed more than 1,800 Palestinians, when the Foreign Ministry pulled together a group of mostly young computer savvy
soldiers supplemented by students both overseas and within Israel to post a number of government-crafted responses to international
criticism.
Many of the initial volunteers worked through a website giyus.org (an acronym for Give Israel Your United Support). The website
included a desktop tool called Megaphone that provided daily updates on articles appearing on the internet that had to be challenged
or attacked. There were once believed to be 50,000 activists receiving the now-inactive Megaphone's alerts.
There have also been reports about a pro-Israel American group called Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
(CAMERA) preparing to enter its own version of developments in the Middle East on the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. E-mails
from CAMERA reveal that the group sought volunteers in 2008 to edit material on Wikipedia "to help us keep Israel-related entries
from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors," while also recommending that articles on the Middle East be avoided initially by supporters
so as not to arouse suspicions about their motives. Volunteers were also advised to use false names that did not hint at any Israeli
or Jewish connection and to avoid any references to being organized by CAMERA. Fifty volunteers reportedly were actively engaged
in the program when it was exposed in the media and the program was put on hold.
CAMERA is an Internal Revenue Service-approved 501(c)(3) organization, which means that contributions to it are tax exempt. Such
exemptions are granted to organizations that are either charitable or educational in nature and they normally preclude any involvement
in partisan political activity. As CAMERA would not appear to qualify as a charity, it is to be presumed that its application for
special tax status stressed that it is educational. Whether its involvement in "un-tainting" Wikipedia truly falls within that definition
might well be debated, particularly as it appears to have been carried out in semi-clandestine fashion. CAMERA might well also be
considered to be a good candidate for registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), as its activity is uniquely
focused on promoting the perceived interests of a foreign government.
The use of Israel's universities as propaganda mills by the government also raises other significant issues. The growing BDS movement
has included some Israeli universities as targets because of their alleged involvement with the government in the occupation of the
West Bank. That the universities are also involved in possible government-sponsored information operations might be an additional
convincing argument that BDS supporters might use to justify blacklisting at least some Israeli academic institutions.
Every government is engaged in selling a product, which is its own self-justifying view of what it does and how it does it. But
the largely clandestine Israeli effort to influence American opinion is unique in that it comes from a country which receives more
than $3 billion annually from the U.S. taxpayer. We Americans are therefore paying to be propagandized by people working for a foreign
government who often pretend to be our fellow citizens but are not. What is occurring is essentially an intelligence operation directed
against the United States, something that the CIA would have run back in the 1970s and 1980s.
That Israel can continue to reap huge amounts of aid and political cover from Washington while it is actively working to make
sure that Americans are poorly informed about the Middle East reveals more than anything the corruption of our political class and
media, both of which appear to be ready to sell out for thirty shekels to anyone with the cash in hand. Time to drain the swamp,
indeed.
This is documented long-term foreign influence which has reached treason levels in the past, for instance at the time the USS
Liberty was sunk in June, 1967. This can be contrasted with the phony Russia accusations levelled by many of the same people whose
first loyalty is to the Israeli state rather than to the yankee imperium employing them. I don't see this ending well.
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress
curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.
Israel's global news penetration (via hasbara) and other disinformation strategies are routine. Diabolical, but routine.
The Zionist state's various tricks and manipulations are legendary and ruthless. They function as a backdoor attack on intellectual
liberty as well as open political discourse. They are anti-democratic.
Thus, even 'freedom of expression' in America is under constant Israeli pressure and surveillance. No stone goes unturned.
This is why Holocaust 'education' is ubiquitous and, when possible, mandatory. If the stories fail, inject guilt. It's an unscrupulous
strategy that is working.
Meanwhile, Zionist myths rain down endlessly via American TV and throughout American mass media. Deep Zionist victimology has
penetrated even US public schools. Hasbara is strategic. It is unrelenting. Ironically, it represents the tribal interest of a
foreign power. Do Americans live under soft occupation? It increasingly looks that way.
This explains why Jewish suffering, Jewish innocence, and Jewish victimology are now compulsory subjects in American life–from
schools to children's TV, to higher education and adult cinema. 'Dominare the message'.
On the other hand, Israel's commitment to segregation between Jews and gentiles is quietly steadfast. "Unshakable'. This head-scratching
phenomena has been obscured by the Fake News meme involving America's 'Judeo-Christian' heritage. Yet it is an absolute ruse.
No such heritage exists. These are Zionist-lead political movements and Zionist headlines. They tread on the thin, manufactured
ice. Theydo not exist organically.
Christ's teachings were in fact a break from Judaism. Christ said as much. Christianity is an Open Admissions theology that
stresses universal ethics that are non-racial. On the other hand, Israel is tribal, racial and exclusionary. This wouldn't be
so repulsive if not for Israel's vociferous (and insincere) support for 'equality' and its pious contempt for 'white nationalism'.
Jewish racism is commanded by God. And Israel's ethical basis is polluted by nepotism, 'chosenness' and racial favoritism under
God. It is a collection of myths and yarns that drip with tribal supremacism.
It's worth remembering also that Jews in Israel have a distinct word for their version of 'Apartheid'. It is 'Hafrada', which
means 'separation' in Hebrew. Ever heard of it? Of course not! Hasbara operatives and their cousins in US news media make sure
of that.
Sadly, we Americans live under soft occupation.
Significantly, few non-Jews have ever heard of 'hafrada'. But everyone has heard of 'Apartheid'.
Gee. How come?
We can thank the legions of young Israeli activists (and their elders) for this deliberate omission and assorted side shows.
Control speech. Control thought.
Make no mistake about it: Israel is a racial supremacist state. Segregation is a core Zionist value. Jewish exceptionalism
is their paramount goal. America is a useful, but temporary, ally. This is the nature of the 'special relationship.'
Zionists never foresaw that having an own state would demonstrate what jews are capable of.
In 1948, thanks to the persecutions of the jews during WWII, Israel had a lot of sympathy in the world.
Nowadays, with no solution anywhere in sight for the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in 1948, in Germany a Secretary
for, against, Antisemitism seems necessary.
Germany debates if criticism of Israel, antizionism, is he same as antisemitism.
Norman Finkelstein and Ilian Pappe recently were not allowed to speak in Germany.
Indeed Israel is great in propaganda, but the effects are less and less.
Israel has but one 'friend', the USA, and how sincere this friendship is is more and more debatable.
Mobilising jews to write on fora, in many languages, any time there have been Israeli atrocities, may have the opposite effect.
Anyone familiar with these fora notices how these propagandists pop up, and disappear after some time.
What they are paid even is known, four or five dollars per message.
It looks like 'you can fool all people some time, some people all the time, but not all the people all the time', still is true.
"What is occurring is essentially an intelligence operation directed against the United States, something that the CIA would
have run back in the 1970s and 1980s"
Hi Phil
Jesse Ventura would have us believe the CIA is as busy as it ever had been, when it comes to running operations against the
American people. I agree with Jesse.
Meanwhile, here's a collection of links I'd assembled some time back, includes American military psyops (esp Air Force) along
the lines of hasbara (who're also included)
The CIA and NSA are essentially the jewish elite secret police. They align exactly with Mossad. Hence 9-11. Read the Devil's Chessboard by Stephen Talbot. We've previoulsy lived under a gentile plutocracy since the assasination of
JFK.
But something happened since as Zion rose to prominence. The coup against Nixon by the Deep State is a part of the puzzle.
Allen Welsh Dulles groomed Nixon. So his loyalists would never have removed him. My hunch is that Nixon's fall to the Washington
Post, consummate deep state pillar, is the key to understanding the later 20th century and our current 'occupation'. Its a pity
nobody could ask David Rockefeller in candour how his group had lost control or merged with the new Zionists.
sites that permit comments on our articles are almost immediately inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar
in both tone and substance.
Speaking of substance, they typically lack any of it. They usually resort to smarmy personal attacks as well as scatological
foolishness and crass bragging. Some resort to juvenile pseudo-intellectual banter that's obviously intended to intimidate or
humiliate, while another favorite tactic seems to be off topic trash that's also supposed to impress the rest of us somehow.
Nevertheless, I encourage the trolls to keep it up and leave them to figure out why.
But the largely clandestine Israeli effort to influence American opinion is unique in that it comes from a country which
receives more than $3 billion annually from the U.S. taxpayer. We Americans are therefore paying to be propagandized by people
working for a foreign government who often pretend to be our fellow citizens but are not.
Also interesting is how they manage to do this without widespread condemnation and/or suspicion. It's like people know about
it, but the Israelis create an environment where people don't quite care. Contrast that to the wumao, China's paid commenters,
who arouse widespread suspicion and constant accusations of shilling.
So Israel must have gone one step further. They manage their image with propagandists, but they also manage the image of the
propagandist as well.
The articles show American taxpayers' money in action.
Again, what was the aftermath of 9/11 about – fighting against Al Qaeda? If yes, then why should not Israel be designated as
a terrorist state supporting Al Qaeda, the US sworn enemy? It seems that Al Qaeda is "good guys" nowadays because they help to
farther the Eretz Israel project
The Israel-occupied US government is proverbially dancing on the graves of 9/11 victims: "How America Armed Terrorists in Syria"
CAMERA is as old as the hills. I remember when I subscribed to the Atlantic back in the 80s this mangy outfit would
run little 2×3 inch print ads. I always wondered what the fuss was about; I mean, who could be against accurate reporting in the
ME? Then it became clear. And they most certainly should be subjected to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, as should many others,
including NY-based Irish Central (a propaganda sheet for the Paddy open borders crowd).
By this time, pretty much everyone does this. Israel might be the biggest or most extensive, but anyone engaged in politics
or related activities does pretty much the same thing.
Any major political party now does this. For example, I was relatively sure the Democrats did this only a couple of weeks back.
AG Sessions was due to testify in a major hearing. It seemed to me that the Democrats both recruited a Senator to hammer a particular
theme, which was to put Sessions in a spot where he had to refuse to answer questions for perfectly legal reasons, and a small
army of internet activists, paid trolls, or bots was mobilized to push memes on the internet on this topic.
By this time, I regard a political party that does not do this as being incompetent.
Corporations also do this. They call it 'brand protection' or 'guerrilla marketing'. Anyone with a little bit of money can
find firms that offer this as a service. What it costs to buy this service would seem expensive to ordinary citizens, but given
the amount of money in play, the cost of a few hundred thousand to a 'consultant' firm is chicken feed. You don't even need to
recruit humans to do it. After all, a fake name and a fake email address can easily be connected to a computer generated fake
message.
A website I go to for news often has headlines like "Twitter explodes to .". I pretty much ignore these as its predictable
and obvious that this can be pre-arranged and manipulated.
The interesting issue I saw raised not too long ago let to the possibility that AI's might manipulate this in the future. At
some point, we'd have to question if there is even a human entity behind this, or is it just an AI that managing our perception
towards itself or other AIs.
There's an old saying that all politics is local. We might actually have to go back to talking to each other face to face.
Good article, but fails to mention that the hasbara would not work without Jewish control of "our" media/entertainment (NYT,
WaPo, Google, Facebook, Hollywood, TV, etc.) industry, not to mention the financial sector and disproportionate representation
of Jews in Congress. Sorry, but those are facts.
@HAL 9000 Israel
is the only country that has control of our congress, our media and the control of the dumb masses to keep driving the US to ruin.
The "everyone does this" line is not much of a response.
Hasbara trolls and websites which publish them are an important measure of true public opinion for the zionists. The Lobby
has its own internal opinion polls which are never shared, certainly not in the crap served up to us by Zogby, Reuters and Pew,
etc. etc. etc.
I suspect that this database is far more comprehensive than commonly known, probably going as far as linking an "anti_Semite"
rating to individual commenters.
@Wally The mooch
fest never ends, unless there's a growing under-current to cut the tentacles. And with cooperative efforts like Technion/Cornell
partnering, they are anchoring themselves to the US indefinitely – so if they fail, they'll pull the US down with them.
They brought Zionist terror to the Middle East, but the victim shtick, via hollywood, has caused the complacent TV-watchers
to be lulled into a false narrative, and who never challenge what a corrupt collective of occupiers, and land swindlers they are.
A review of 'Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto' – by Gilad Atzmon
"WaPo has a 8,300 word weekend opus on how Obama failed to react to CIA director Brennan's claims that Putin himself ordered to
hack the U.S. election.
Note:
Reading that piece it becomes clear (but is never said) that the sole source for that August 2016 Brennan claim of "Russian hacking"
is the absurd Steele dossier some ex-MI6 dude created for too much money as opposition research against Trump . The only
other "evidence" for "Russian hacking" is the Crowdstrike report on the DNC "hack". Crowdstrike has a Ukrainian nationalist agenda,
was hired by the DNC , had to retract other "Russian hacking" claims and no one else was allowed to take a look at the
DNC servers. Said differently: The whole "Russian hacking" claims are solely based on "evidence" of two fake reports."
The Crowdstrike' report was concocted under command of Dmitri Alperovitch, a rabid Russophobe of Jewish ethnicity, who is also
an "expert" at Atlantic Council, where he joins other "experts" like Eliot Higgins. Higgins was nicely dressed recently by the
honorable C0l. Pat Lang who wrote about Higgins: " an uneducated, inexperienced guy with an opinion The fact that this gentlemen
is treated as a credible source is further proof of the insanity that has taken over the public debate. He knows nothing other
than what he has read. He has not been through live agent training at Fort McClellan (I have). He has no scientific background
in the subject matter and no experience (other than playing video games) with actual chemical weapons (Ted Postol, who has written
extensively on the subject, does have actual scientific and military expertise on the topic). Higgins knows nothing of the military
doctrine for employing such weapons. He knows nothing of the process and procedures required for a military unit to safely handle,
load, activate and deploy such weapons."
To illustrate the power of the Lobby, it is educational to know that Higgins is also a "Visiting Research Associate at the
Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS), Department of War Studies, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS,"
- kidding you not. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/visiting/higgins.aspx
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military
Personnel
The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since
September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed
Worldwide. The underlying land surface is of the order of *30* million acres. According to Gelman,
who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign
lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military
bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*,
which makes the *Pentagon* one of the largest landowners worldwide!
September 17, 2014 US Pursues *134** Wars Around the World
The US is now involved in *134* wars or none, depending on your definition of war The White
House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word "war" was the right one to describe
its military actions against the Islamic State.
June 21, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - One of the most rational bills ever proposed, barring the Feds from giving
money and weapons to child murdering terrorists, has almost ZERO support.
For the last several decades, the US government has openly funded, supported, and armed various
terrorist networks throughout the world to forward an agenda of
destabilization and
proxy war . It is not a secret, nor a conspiracy theory,
America arms bad guys .
Given the insidious history of the American empire and its creation and fostering of terrorist
regimes across the globe, it should come as no surprise that the overwhelming majority of politicians
would refuse to sign on to a law that requires them to '
Stop Arming
Terrorists .' And, that is exactly what's happened.
H.R.608 –
Stop Arming Terrorists Act was introduced by
Rep. Gabbard, Tulsi [D-HI] on January 23 of this year. The bill doesn't have any crazy strings
attached and its original cosponsors are a mix of Republicans and Democrats - highlighting that it
transcends party lines.
"For years, our government has been providing both direct and indirect support to these armed
militant groups, who are working directly with or under the command of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda
and ISIS , all in their effort and fight to overthrow the Syrian government," Gabbard said
in an interview
earlier this year.
The text of the bill is simple. It merely states that it prohibits the use of federal agency funds
to provide covered assistance to: (1) Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL), or any individual or group that is affiliated with, associated with, cooperating
with, or adherents to such groups; or (2) the government of any country that the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (ODNI) determines has, within the most recent 12 months, provided covered
assistance to such a group or individual.
The only thing this bill does is prohibit the US government from giving money and weapons to people
who want to murder Americans and who do murder innocent men, women, and children across the globe.
It is quite possibly the simplest and most rational bill ever proposed by Congress. Given its rational
and humanitarian nature, one would think that representatives would be lining up to show their support.
However, one would be wrong.
After nearly 5 months since its introduction, only 13 of the 535 members of Congress have signed
on as co-sponsors. What this lack of support for the bill shows is that the federal government is
addicted to funding terror and has
no intention of ever stopping it .
What's more is the fact that less than one week after publicly reprimanding Qatar for terrorism,
President Trump signed off on the sale of
$12 billion in weapons to the country he referred to as a "funder of terrorism." This move, in
Trump's own stance, makes him a de facto funder of terrorism now.
What this lack of support for the bills and the recent moves to arm the terrorist regimes illustrates
is the fact that the US has no intention of ever stopping terrorism. Trump, just like Obama and Bush
before him, will continue to foster the growth of terrorism to enrich those who profit from war.
Terrorism is necessary for the state. War, is the health of the state.
Without the constant fear mongering about an enemy who 'hates our freedom,' Americans begin questioning
things. They challenge the status quo and inevitably desire more freedom. However, when they are
told that boogeymen want to kill them, they become immediately complacent and blinded by their fear.
It's a vicious cycle of creating terrorists, killing innocence, and stoking war. And, unless something
radical happens, it shows no signs of ever reversing.
The radical change that is necessary to shift this paradigm back to peace is for people to wake
up to the reality that no matter which puppet is in the White House, the status quo remains unchanged.
Trump is proving that he can lie to get into power and his supporters ignore it. If you doubt
this fact, look at what
Trump did by calling out Saudi Arabia for their role in 9/11 and their support for terror worldwide
prior to getting elected. He now supports these terrorists and his constituency couldn't care less.
This madness has to stop. Humanity has to stop being
fooled by rhetoric read from teleprompters by puppets doing the bidding of their masters.
Please share this article with your friends and family to show them how their supposed 'leaders'
- except for a few good ones - are content with funding the enemy, laying waste to rights, and condone
the murder of innocence.
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly
tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption
and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has
been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Matt is the founder of The Free Thought Project.
"... the U.S. government tenders to build NATO bases in Crimea , Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia:" http://redpilltimes.com/u-s-navy-tender-construction-work-sevastopol-crimea-hints-u-s-military-coveted-controlling-historic-russian-peninsula/ http://thesaker.is/russia-sitrep-june-25-2017/ ..."
"... In light of the evidence, the US cooperation with neo-Nazis in Ukraine looks natural. "Support the troops," neocon style. ..."
"... Once they create a supply line Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, and if they can hold it, that's the game-over, the 6-year-long US intervention in Syria will have lost. ..."
as for Syria, I think I saw in the news a few days ago that SAA has reached the Iranian border.
It probably doesn't constitute a supply line yet, but that's a huge advance.
Once they create a supply line Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, and if they can hold it, that's
the game-over, the 6-year-long US intervention in Syria will have lost.
"... Everybody knows and particularly Putin must have known that that war is not a civil internal war. It is an irredentist war. ..."
"... The people in Donbas (or broader in South-East Ukraine) do not seem to want to overthrow Kiev and install some more "honest" regime. All they have ever wanted is to join to Russia or at least to be independent from Kiev and left alone. ..."
"... This is not a classical civil war like in Spain, Libya, Syria, etc., where the anti-government forces want to control the entire country. I'm 100% sure the Donbas people do not care what may happen to West Ukraine or in Lviv. ..."
"... Frankly speaking he [ Yanukovych] was (is) actually a soft-line Ukrainian nationalist who was friendly with Russia as long as it helped Ukraine. ..."
"... Irrational fanaticism is a hallmark of decaying regimes. Consider the 'Satanic panic' in the eighties as the evangelicals enjoyed their last hurrah at the cultural helm. Demons conspired against the righteous from every dark corner in those days. ..."
"... Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.' Well, our elites are incapable of that sort of realism. The only partners they accept are ideologically colonized ones. The Russian elite should view the case of Iran as germane. No matter what Iran does, including signing the nuke deal, America (and the Zionist homunculus pulling the levers in Washington) will seek to raise their independence to the ground. Hell, America will stab its friends in the back (e.g., Mubarak). ..."
Concerning Putin's comments on Ukraine, the impression I got is that this entire moment was staged.
The man from Kiev who asked question had a Russian accent, and in his reply Putin simply repeated
the official Kremlin narrative: war in Donbass is an internal conflict of the Ukraine.
Needless to say I don't think Putin was sincere in all of his answers. These "phone-ins" serve
to convey a certain message to the Russian public, and the message Putin wanted to convey was
that of compassion, competence, stability and peace.
in his reply Putin simply repeated the official Kremlin narrative: war in Donbass is an
internal conflict of the Ukraine.
Everybody knows and particularly Putin must have known that that war is not a civil internal
war. It is an irredentist war.
The people in Donbas (or broader in South-East Ukraine) do not
seem to want to overthrow Kiev and install some more "honest" regime. All they have ever wanted
is to join to Russia or at least to be independent from Kiev and left alone.
This is not a classical
civil war like in Spain, Libya, Syria, etc., where the anti-government forces want to control
the entire country. I'm 100% sure the Donbas people do not care what may happen to West Ukraine
or in Lviv.
... intervening in Ukraine before Yanukovych was overthrown ...
What are you talking about? Crimea? The Russians did not intervene until after Yanukovich
was overthrown.
The Russians did not intervene until after Yanukovich was overthrown.
Frankly speaking he [ Yanukovych] was (is) actually a soft-line Ukrainian nationalist who was friendly with
Russia as long as it helped Ukraine.
So it is a good thing he has been kicked off and Russia shouldn't
have intervened, otherwise Russia hasn't got the Crimea, for example. But Russia should not have
stopped there and should have intervened thereafter. But after having allowed to overthrow a soft-line
nationalist, Putin and Co., instead of creating a really pro-Russian Ukraine, have allowed the
hard-line nationalists to come to power. This obviously will remain one of the biggest fails in
Russian history.
I think Karlin is being way too negative on the SAA and on Russia's involvement
in Syria.
I think he resents the fact that Putin is doing more to help Syria than Ukraine, and
unfortunately, he's allowed his resentment to color his analysis.
To be sure, I think I can understand
how Russian nationalists like Anatoly must feel about the situation. If I were a Russian nationalist,
I would probably hold this against Putin too ('Putinsliv!').
But I'm not a Russian, so I have
the luxury of being more objective about the situation. For the record, I think Russia should
take a much stronger line with Kiev. Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand
bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.' Well, our elites are incapable
of that sort of realism. The only partners they accept are ideologically colonized ones. The Russian
elite should view the case of Iran as germane. No matter what Iran does, including signing the
nuke deal, America (and the Zionist homunculus pulling the levers in Washington) will seek to
raise their independence to the ground. Hell, America will stab its friends in the back
(e.g., Mubarak).
Irrational fanaticism is a hallmark of decaying regimes. Consider the 'Satanic panic' in the
eighties as the evangelicals enjoyed their last hurrah at the cultural helm. Demons conspired
against the righteous from every dark corner in those days.
IMO, the reason Assad is receiving more decisive support is because the Kremlin believes its
a lot harder for America to 'push back' in Syria. Conversely,a full spectrum Russian move against
Ukraine would elicit consequences Russia is not willing to risk under the Putin Mindframe
. (for instance, increased sanctions would mean Russia would be forced to adopt heterodox
economics systematically).
Karlin has made a case why Russia should do more, but on the other
hand Putin may know things he doesn't.
@Lemurmaniac
For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev.
Putin clings to
the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected
'partner.' Well, our elites are incapable of that sort of realism. The only partners they accept
are ideologically colonized ones. The Russian elite should view the case of Iran as germane. No
matter what Iran does, including signing the nuke deal, America (and the Zionist homunculus pulling
the levers in Washington) will seek to raise their independence to the ground. Hell, America will
stab its friends in the back (e.g., Mubarak).
Irrational fanaticism is a hallmark of decaying regimes. Consider the 'Satanic panic' in the eighties
as the evangelicals enjoyed their last hurrah at the cultural helm. Demons conspired against the
righteous from every dark corner in those days.
IMO, the reason Assad is receiving more decisive support is because the Kremlin believes its a
lot harder for America to 'push back' in Syria. Conversely,a full spectrum Russian move against
Ukraine would elicit consequences Russia is not willing to risk under the Putin Mindframe
. (for instance, increased sanctions would mean Russia would be forced to adopt heterodox
economics systematically). Karlin has made a case why Russia should do more, but on the other
hand Putin may know things he doesn't.
For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev. Putin clings
to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes
a respected 'partner.'
Putin "clings" to hope, a justifiable one, that EU, especially Germany, will put Ukraine on
its books. As per "stronger line", I guess the fact that Ukrainian Armed Forces still, after two
years of famous cauldrons, didn't try to mount any serious operation in Donbass should be viewed
as an indication of the "much stronger line". But ignoring the whole dynamics of events in Ukraine
from early 2014 has become a MO for many. People still don't get it or simply ignore (very often
deliberately) the fact that Russia, from the onset, needed Crimea only–she got it. The rest was
a situationally-driven, mostly reactive, approach, which, as it became very clear after 3.5 years,
was largely correct. Even such evident fact of a massive (and very expensive) construction of
Crimean Bridge testifies to the fact that nobody had any serious hopes for the rest of Eastern
Ukraine rising up and doing anything–a correct strategic assumption.
For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev. Putin clings to
the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a
respected 'partner.'
Putin "clings" to hope, a justifiable one, that EU, especially Germany, will put Ukraine on its
books. As per "stronger line", I guess the fact that Ukrainian Armed Forces still, after two years
of famous cauldrons, didn't try to mount any serious operation in Donbass should be viewed as
an indication of the "much stronger line". But ignoring the whole dynamics of events in Ukraine
from early 2014 has become a MO for many. People still don't get it or simply ignore (very often
deliberately) the fact that Russia, from the onset, needed Crimea only--she got it. The rest was
a situationally-driven, mostly reactive, approach, which, as it became very clear after 3.5 years,
was largely correct. Even such evident fact of a massive (and very expensive) construction of
Crimean Bridge testifies to the fact that nobody had any serious hopes for the rest of Eastern
Ukraine rising up and doing anything--a correct strategic assumption. There's no denying a 'northern
wind' blew through the Donbass at the critical juncture, but it sought to 'stabilize' the situation
rather than resolve it. From a nationalist perspective, hanging those people out to dry (refusing
to recognize their sovereignty) is kind of a dick move. But Putin's super duper plan involves
leaving those regions in the Ukraine to veto pro-Western moves by Kiev. Setting aside the moral
issue of leaving the Eastern Ukrainians in a position of constant insecurity, it sounds good in
theory. There is simply no way the West will let that stand, however. John McCain and co are not
about to let Moscow back into Kiev. So, either the conflict will remain permanently frozen (with
Russian leaning Ukrainians permanently alienated from Moscow and Kiev), or Kiev will kick out
the Donbass and become a NATO state. Since it seems Putin's whole strategy in Ukraine is predicated
on that happening, a much stronger line on whose orbit Ukraine, or at least the whole Eastern
half of the country belongs to, was required from the beginning.
I don't see why it helps Russia if Germany is writing checks for Kiev. They'll certainly never
write 'em for the east.
By now most of you have heard the latest bad news of
out Syria: on June 18
th
a US F/A-18E Super Hornet (1999) used a
AIM-120 AMRAAM (1991) to shoot down a Syrian Air Force Su-22 (1970). Two
days later, June 20
th
, a US F-15E Strike Eagle shot down an
Iranian IRGC Shahed 129 drone. The excuse used each time was that there was
a threat to US and US supported forces. The reality is, of course, that the
US are simply trying to stop the advance of the Syrian army. This was thus a
typical American "show of force". Except that, of course, shooting a 47 year
old Soviet era Su-22 fighter-bomber is hardly an impressive feat. Neither is
shooting a unmanned drone. There is a pattern here, however, and that
pattern is that all US actions so far have been solely for show: the
basically failed bombing of the Syria military airbase, the bombing of the
Syrian army column, the shooting down of the Syrian fighter-bomber and of
the Iranian drone – all these actions have no real military value. They do,
however, have a provocative value as each time all the eyes turn to Russia
to see if the Russians will respond or not.
Russia did respond this time again, but in
a very ambiguous and misunderstood manner. The Russians announced, amongst
other measure that from now on "
any airborne objects, including
aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition,
located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian
ground and air defense forces as air targets
" which I reported as "
Russian
MoD declares it will shoot down any aircraft flying west of the Euphrates
river
". While I gave the exact Russian quote, I did not explain why I
paraphrased the Russian words the way I did. Now is a good time to explain
this.
"В районах выполнения боевых задач
российской авиацией в небе Сирии любые воздушные объекты, включая
самолёты и беспилотные аппараты международной коалиции, обнаруженные
западнее реки Евфрат, будут приниматься на сопровождение российскими
наземными и воздушными средствами противовоздушной обороны в качестве
воздушных целей"
A literal translation would be:
"In areas of the combat missions of
Russian aviation in the skies of Syria any airborne objects, including
aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicle of the international coalition
discovered to the West of the Euphrates river, will be tracked by Russian
ground based an airborne assets as air targets"
So what does this exactly mean in
technical-military terms?
A quick look inside a US fighter's
cockpit
When an F/A-18 flies over Syria the
on-board emission detectors (called radar warning receivers or RWR) inform
the pilot of the kind of radar signals the aircraft is detecting. Over Syria
that means that the pilot would see a lot of search radars looking in all
directions trying to get a complete picture of what is happening in the
Syrian skies. The US pilot will be informed that a certain number of Syrian
S-300 and Russian S-400 batteries are scanning the skies and most probably
see him. So far so good. If there are deconfliction zones or any type of
bilateral agreements to warn each other about planned sorties then that kind
of radar emissions are no big deal. Likewise US radars (ground, sea or air
based) are also scanning the skies and "seeing" the Russian Aerospace
Forces' aircraft on their radars and the Russians know that. In this
situation neither side is treating anybody as "air targets". When a decision
is made to treat an object as an "air target" a completely different type of
radar signal is used and a much narrower energy beam is directed at the
target which can now be tracked and engaged. The pilot is, of course,
immediately informed of this. At this point the pilot is in a very
uncomfortable position: he knows that he is being tracked, but he has no way
of knowing if a missile has already been launched against him or not.
Depending on a number of factors, an AWACS might be able to detect a missile
launch, but this might not be enough and it might also be too late.
The kind of missiles fired by S-300/S-400
batteries are extremely fast, over 4,000mph (four thousand miles per hour)
which means that a missile launched as far away as 120 miles will reach you
in 2 minutes or that a missile launched 30 miles away will reach you in 30
seconds. And just to make things worse, the S-300 can use a special radar
mode called "track via missile" where the radar emits a pulse towards the
target whose reflection is then received not by the ground based radar, but
by the rapidly approaching missile itself, which then sends its reading back
to the ground radar which then sends guidance corrections back to the
missile. Why is that bad for the aircraft? Because there is no way to tell
from the emissions whether a missile has been launched and is already
approaching at over 4,000mph or not. The S-300 and S-400 also have other
modes, including the Seeker Aided Ground Guidance (SAGG) where the missile
also computes a guidance solution (not just the ground radar) and then the
two are compared and a Home On Jam (HOJ) mode when the jammed missile then
homes directly on the source of the jamming (such as an onboard jamming
pod). Furthermore, there are other radar modes available such as the Ground
Aided Inertial (GAI) which guides the missile in the immediate proximity of
the target where the missile switches on its own radar just before hitting
the target. Finally, there is some pretty good evidence that the Russians
have perfected a complex datalink system which allows them to fuse into one
all the signals they acquire from their missiles, airborne aircraft
(fighter, interceptor or AWACS) and ground radars and that means that, in
theory, if a US aircraft is outside the flight envelope (reach) of the
ground based missiles the signals acquired by the ground base radars could
be used to fire an air-to-air missile at the US aircraft (we know that their
MiG-31s are capable of such engagements, so I don't see why their much more
recent Su-30/Su-35 could not). This would serve to further complicate the
situational awareness of the pilot as a missile could be coming from
literally any direction. At this point the only logical reaction would be
for the US pilot to inform his commanders and get out, fast. Sure, in
theory, he could simply continue his mission, but that would be very hard,
especially if he suspects that the Syrians might have other, mobile, air
defense on the way to, or near, his intended target.
Just try to imagine this: you are flying,
in total illegality, over hostile territory and preparing to strike a target
when suddenly your radar warning receiver goes off and tells you "you got 30
seconds or (much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead
coming at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not". How would you feel if it was you
sitting in that cockpit? Would you still be thinking about executing your
planned attack?
The normal US strategy is to achieve what
is called "air superiority/supremacy" by completely suppressing enemy air
defenses and taking control of the skies. If I am not mistaken, the last
time the US fighters operated in a meaningfully contested air space was in
Vietnam
By the way, these technologies are not
uniquely Russian, they are well known in the West, for example the US
Patriot SAM also uses TVM, but the Russians have very nicely integrated them
into one formidable air defense system.
The bottom line is this: once the US
aircraft is "treated like a target" he has no way of knowing if the Syrians,
or the Russians, are just being cheeky or whether has has seconds left to
live. Put differently, "treating like a target" is tantamount to somebody
putting a gun to your head and letting you guess if/when he will pull the
trigger.
So yes, the Russian statement most
definitely was a "threat to shoot down"!
Next, a look into the Russian side of
the equation
To understand why the Russians used the
words "treat like an air target" rather than "will shoot down" you need to
remember that Russia is still the weaker party here. There is nothing worse
than not delivering on a threat. If the Russians had said "we will shoot
down" and then had not done so, they would have made an empty threat.
Instead, they said "will treat as an air target" because that leaves them an
"out" should they decided not to pull the trigger. However, for the US Navy
or Air Force pilot, these considerations are all irrelevant once his
detectors report to him that he is being "painted" with the beam of an
engagement radar!
It cannot be overemphasized that the very
last thing Russia needs is to shoot down a US aircraft over Syria which is
exactly what some elements of the Pentagon seem to want. Not only is Russia
the weaker side in this conflict, but the Russians also understand the wider
political consequences of what would happen if they took the dramatic step
to shoot down a US aircraft: a dream come true for the Neocons and a
disaster for everybody else.
A quick look from the US Neoconistan
and the quest for a "tepid war"
The dynamic in Syria is not fundamentally
different from the dynamic in the Ukraine: the Neocons know that they have
failed to achieve their primary objective: to control the entire country.
They also know that their various related financial schemes have collapsed.
Finally, they are fully aware that they owe this defeat to Russia and,
especially, to Vladimir Putin. So they fell back on plan B. Plan B is almost
as good as Plan A (full control) because Plan B has much wider consequences.
Plan B is also very simple: trigger a major crisis with Russia but stay
short from a full-scale war. Ideally, Plan B should revolve around a "firm"
"reaction" to the Russian "aggression" and a "defense" of the US "allies" in
the region. In practical terms this simply means: get the Russians to openly
send forces into Novorussia or get the Russians to take military actions
against the US or its allies in Syria. Once you get this you can easily see
that the latest us attacks in Syria have a minor local purpose – to scare or
slow down the Syrians- and a major global purpose – to bait the Russians
into using forces against the US or an ally. It bears repeating here that
what the Neocons really want is what I call a "tepid" war with Russia: an
escalation of tensions to levels not even seen during the Cold War, but not
a full-scale "hot" WWIII either. A tepid war would finally re-grant NATO at
least some kind of purpose (to protect "our European friends and allies"
from the "Russian threat"): the already terminally spineless EU politicians
would all be brought into an even more advanced state of subservience, the
military budgets would go even higher and Trump would be able to say that he
made "America" "great" again. And, who knows, maybe the Russian people would
*finally* rise against Putin, you never know! (They wouldn't – but the
Neocons have never been deterred from their goofy theories by such minor and
altogether irrelevant things as facts or logic).
[Sidebar: I noticed this time again that
each time the US tries to bait Russia into some kind of harsh reaction and
Russia declines to take the bait, this triggers in immediate surge into the
number of comments which vehemently complain that Russia is acting like a
pussy, that Putin is a fake, that he is "in cahoots" with the US and/or
Israel and that the Russians are weak or that they have "sold out". I am
getting a sense that we are dealing with paid US PSYOP operatives whose
mission is to use the social media to try to put the Kremlin under pressure
with these endless accusations of weakness and selling-out. Since I have no
interest in rewarding these folks in any way, I mostly send their
recriminations where they belong: to the trash]
Does the Russian strategy work?
To reply to this, don't look at what the
Russians do or do not do in the immediate aftermath of a US provocation.
Take a higher level look and just see what happens in the mid to long term.
Just like in a game of chess, taking the Gambit is not always the correct
strategy.
I submit that to evaluate whether Putin's
policies are effective or not, to see whether he has "sold out" or "caved
in" you need to, for example, look at the situation in Syria (or the
Ukraine, for that matter) as it was 2 years ago and then compare with what
it is today. Or, alternatively, look at the situation as it is today and
come back to re-visit it in 6 months.
One huge difference between the western
culture and the way the Russians (or the Chinese for that matter) look at
geostrategy is that westerners always look at everything in the short term
and tactical level. This is basically the single main reason why both
Napoleon and Hitler lost their wars against Russia: an almost exclusive
focus on the short term and tactical. In contrast, the Russians are the
undisputed masters of operational art (in a purely military sense) and, just
like the Chinese, they tend to always keep their eyes on the long-term
horizon. Just look at the Turkish downing of a Russian Su-24: everybody
bemoaned the lack of "forceful" reaction from Moscow. And then, six months
later – what do we have? Exactly.
The modern western culture is centered on
various forms of instant gratification, and that is also true for
geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver
a "firm" response. They like to "send messages" and they firmly believe that
doing something, no matter how symbolic, is better than even the
appearance
of doing nothing. As for the appearance of doing
nothing, it is universally interpreted as a sign of weakness. Russians don't
think that way. They don't care about instant gratification, they care only
about one thing: victory. And if that means to look weak, that is fine. From
a Russian perspective, sending "messages" or taking symbolic actions (like
all 4 of the recent US attacks in Syria) are not signs of strength, but
signs of weakness. Generally, the Russians don't like to use force which
they consider inherently dangerous. But when they do, they never threaten or
warn, they take immediate and pragmatic (non-symbolic) action which gets
them closer to a specific goal.
Conclusion
The Russian reaction to the latest US
attack on Syria was not designed to maximize the approval of the many
Internet armchair strategists. It was designed to maximize the discomfort of
the US lead "coalition" in Syria while minimizing the risks for Russia. It
is precisely by using an ambiguous language which civilians would interpret
in one way, and military personnel in another, that the Russians introduced
a very disruptive element of unpredictability into the planning of US air
operations in Syria.
The Russians are not without their own faults and bad
habits and they make mistakes (recognizing the Ukronazi junta in Kiev after
the coup was probably such a mistake), but it is important to differentiate
between their real weaknesses and mistakes and their very carefully designed
strategies. Just because they don't act in the way their putative
"supporters" in the West would does not mean that they have "caved in",
"blinked first" or any other such nonsense. The first step towards
understanding how the Russians function is to stop expecting that they would
act just like Americans would.
P.S: By the way, the Syrian pilot shot
down made it out alive. Here is a photo of him following his rescue by
Syrian special forces:
The modern western culture is centered on
various forms of instant
gratification
, and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other
guy does something, western leaders always deliver a "firm" response.
They like to "send messages"
Excellent point. That is why "West" (US mostly) can not win a single war
in 70 years.
A good, interesting article. Much of what's gone on is rather opaque and
it's difficult to understand what the meaning of some of these actions are
such as in this shoot-down of the Syrian plane. People scratch their heads
and try to come up with plausible explanations. Plain stupidity or rashness
on the part of some military people? Are there American special forces
disguised and embedded with some of these 'rebel' groups that they wanted to
protect? Or, more sinisterly and as suggested, there's a plan afoot to
ratchet up US-Russian tensions by engineering incidents that could be used
to fan war hysteria and panic. A new cold war, properly managed, could be
good for business and divert money into the connected people's bank
accounts, funneling tax money upwards. It's a racket that kills the
expendables. At any rate we'll need a few more pieces of the puzzle to see
what the American game plan happens to be.
@TipTipTopKek
But at least it was, without denigrating a decisive role of the Soviet
Union, a formal coalition victory. Plus, let's not deny US Navy its well
deserved victory in the Pacific. Pacific was largely an American victory,
even considering Red Army's crushing defeat of Kwantung Army in 1945. Yet,
uncritical and triumphalist lessons of WW II on European Theater in WW II
played as tricky of a role in US post-WW II history as did a turkey shoot
against third rate Saddam's force in the Gulf in 1990-91. One can not learn
properly when the lessons are wrong.
Because there is no way to tell from the emissions whether a missile
has been launched and is already approaching at over 4,000mph or not.
How little you know.
Just try to imagine this: you are flying, in total illegality, over
hostile territory and preparing to strike a target when suddenly your
radar warning receiver goes off and tells you "you got 30 seconds or
(much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead coming
at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not".
Hilarious. You need to give some thought to what you post.
More Saker. To paraphrase Mencken, If you don't read him, your
uninformed. If do, you're misinformed.
@TipTipTopKek
Right. Only Ivan was fighting the Germans. The Rooskis got a lot of war
material from the US. The Red Army would have starved to death if not for
the us. And that is far from the only thing that went from the US to Stalin.
"Pakistan's Foreign Office has issued a statement today warning that they
will not tolerate drone strikes inside their territory"
Russia should lure
Pak away from US orbit , get Taliban on its side and remove Iran from Indian
influence- thus getting them rid of US. Russia can engineer a new reality
against Saudi Israel US . Russia can prove Afghanistan as the tomb where
empire comes to rest
Pakistan (together with India) became full member of Shanghai Cooperation
Organization last week or two. This is very significant, to put it mildly,
and it is certainly some long way from "US orbit".
@Quartermaster
It is true that the Soviets got a lot of Lend-Lease from the US. Britain got
much more (about 2/3′s of the total). The Red Army would not have starved to
death without the US. American lend-lease made the Soviet victory over
Germany easier. It didn't make it possible. Since about 2/3′s of the German
army was engaged on the Russian front the Americans should be forever
grateful that those German divisions weren't waiting for the Americans in
Normandy. The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable
is pathetic.
The oh so subtle Russian triumph in Syria that Saker keeps telling us about
is apparently not understood by the US forces in Syria. The Assad regieme
advances is 100% due to the US not supplying the popular forces with anti
aircraft weapons. Assad's pilots are brave when they know there is nothing
to fear, but now know they are going to be shot out of the sky over US
backed forces, so the Assad advance will halt.
once the US aircraft is "treated like a target" he has no way of
knowing if the Syrians, or the Russians, are just being cheeky or whether
has has seconds left to live.
It doesn't look like the Israeli pilots feel that way when they bomb
their targets inside Syria, which they successfully do on a regular basis.
@Mikel
You don't say where Israel is bombing in Syria and the conceits of Israel
are so boring to me I don't wish to research the topic. Based on history, I
assume that Israeli bombing is in the Golan area, extreme south-west Syria.
Israeli "he-man" tactics in the Golan will have no effect on the defense of
Syria against ISIS and the USA. Therefore, why should the Russians or the
Syrians pay any attention at all to the little circus side show the Israelis
present?
As to the Ũbermenschen Israeli pilots flying kamakazi missions into
Syria, ho-hum? Write up an outline of a script and we'll send it to
Hollywood.
@Macon Richardson
As should be evident, all I did was provide a fact that seems to be in
direct contradiction with Saker's technical explanations in this column.
That you don't have any clue of where the Israelis have been bombing,
even though it has been widely reported in the media and recognized by both
sides, is your problem. And, talking about soporific subjects, discussions
over the Israelis/Jews being evil, good, heroic or cowards could hardly be
further away from my interest.
I really have no idea about radar systems but the fact that nobody
offered an explanation for this contradiction suggests that Saker may be,
once again, exaggerating the Russian capabilities.
While Russia may want caution, Syrian and Iranian militias don't care. ISIS
is almost gone from SE Syria, so there is no need for an American base there
to train anti-ISIS units. Americans have illegally invaded Syria, and the
international community agrees. These militias have mortars and artillery,
so can fire away and wait to see if the Americans dare counterattack by air.
If they do, Russian missiles are ready for self-defense. Imagine a downed
American pilot captured by ISIS.
Meanwhile, Russia shows restraint to
enjoy the Qatar situation, with new Saudi demands that compensation is due
and the Turkish troops must leave. These dictators have long tolerated
American military bases under the assumption it meant American protection.
If the USA back stabs Qatar, what will the other Gulf State tyrants think?
What if Iranian troops are invited to defend Qatar?
And what about the Turks? They are itching for chance to reclaim NE Syria
and its oil fields, which they say the Brits and French stole a hundred
years ago. They can wipe out the Kurd forces there at the same time. They
are building up forces in Syria for this move. They are just waiting for an
excuse to attack.
@Mikel
Why should the Russians anatagonize the Israelis? It costs a lot and is
politically inconvenient. Israel is nearby, Russia is not. The minute-long
rush of adrenaline would certainly not be worth it.
The clusterfuck is currently such that waiting & waltzing & carrying a
stick, any stick, is likely to be the best policyless policy. (
Asterixian
Wars
come to mind, sorry for the juvenile reference)
A writeup in Haaretz (is this a premium page that is accessible via the
print menu? well, I don't care)
"We're working productively with Jordan, as we are working with
Israel, and I'm not hiding anything from you," Russian Defense Minister
Sergey Shoygu told his country's parliament late last month. Shoygu even
noted his "productive talks" with Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman,
with whom he speaks on the phone regularly. Arab media outlets report on
continuous communication between Russian and Israeli fighter pilots, who
coordinate planned flights, just as Israel coordinates its aerial and
other actions in Syria with Russian command headquarters.
The "other actions" include Israel's shipments of humanitarian and
military aid to the militias operating in the Syrian side of the Golan
Heights, and in the Daraa area nearby. An intense battle has been
underway in recent weeks in Daraa as the Syrian army tries to advance
with Shi'ite militias and Iranian-backed Hezbollah to suppress the
rebels. These efforts are at the heart of coordination talks between
Jordan, Russia, the United States and Saudi Arabia. In some of the talks
that took place in Jordan, Israelis were on hand, and in other cases
coordination was by phone or through emissaries who visited Israel.
@Quartermaster
Americans are criminals killing all over the planet. Raped many girls during
the war in many countries did American soldiers and nothing has changed they
did the same on Vietnam and Iraq. Just savage animals with a penchant for
war and buggery.
Also Eisenhower starved to death 1.2million German soldiers and proof of
that is he rerouted supplies and let them die in the open air prisons
without food. A cruel nation of barbarians.
The world is at the mercy of American mafia thugs and Russia is the savior
behaving with principles.
The old western Shane is an example where Americans used to be able to take
one on the chin for the bigger picture.
But neocons are just animals. I remember in Josephus description of the
sacking of Jerusalem, the Israelis were so out of their minds that they not
only burnt their own grain during the siege, but their own temple as well.
@Begemot
{Since about 2/3′s of the German army was engaged on the Russian front}
It was not 2/3rds or ~67%: it was about 80%.
Also, about 80% of Wehrmacht's best, toughest divisions were ground up on
the Eastern front. At a terribly high cost to the Red Army men and materiel.
{ . that those German divisions weren't waiting for the Americans in
Normandy. }
Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the
ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the
heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster
was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.
{The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is
pathetic.}
A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and
divert money into the connected people's bank accounts, funneling tax
money upwards.
A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the
more obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler
quote we've all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to
the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that "war is a
racket."
The problem is, it just isn't true. Nobody-not even the Neocons, not even
government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor-could
possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold
War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something else has to be
motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.
These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians
against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also
rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.
However, I think it's time to retire the "war is a racket" meme. It has
no explanatory power in today's world. The age of imperial expansion, of
making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was
on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical
or economic rationale in Washington's war-making. Every war we fight makes
us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler's wars, however ignoble he thought the
motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists
of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of
worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have
only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber
barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.
The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These
are "existential" wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate
fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their
penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in
their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.
If 'peaceful' countries want war the trick is to provoke the country you
want to attack to make the first move.
Hitler ran into the trap when he attacked Poland in Sept 1939, after Polish
provocations since the British guarantee of March 1939.
Japan ran into the trap of Roosevelt's oil boycott.
Saddam did nothing stupid enough to excuse war, therefore Sept 11 was
created.
Putin is not stupid, he knows quite well that the western war mongers are
waiting for the excuse to attack Russia.
Heightened tensions in Syria in my opinion have but one goal: getting an
excuse to attack Russia.
Some kind of Liberty 'accident' would be great.
Maybe he's too cunning/clever by half – as in a neo-con collaborator. He
was given a mandate to get out of ME conflicts and if he had done what he
was elected to do, the US could be getting on with domestic affairs rather
than evaluating the possibility of WW3.
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25
neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish,
who are pushing
President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists
William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.
This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the
names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block
radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year
and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the
ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g.
the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The
disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the
day.
That's in the movies.
"GIs" did not "run", indeed Patton mounted a skillfull counterattack on
the move. This last show of the Wehrmacht and Party Armed Forces (who didn't
let the occasion to "clean up" in the re-occupied territories pass them by)
had little chance of success in any case. Germans ran out of fuel, manpower
and maintained equipment while trying to get this Hitler-fairyland-push
towards Anvers rolling. The Meuse was never even crossed. Yes, control of
the air helped, and the extraordinarily harsh winter did the rest. It was
too late in any case.
(Also, in WWII, the US air wing was the "Army Air Forces", the USAF was
created 1947, but that's just nitpicking)
Now, if you want to consider a senseless WWI-style grind-war that can be
considered Allied failure:
Battle of Hürtgen Forest
: "The over-all cost of the Siegfried Line
Campaign in American personnel was close to 140,000."
@TipTipTopKek
I once had a pretty young Russian lady ask me (in a bar in Germany, of all
places) why we celebrate VE day on 8 May, to which I replied, "That's the
day we (she knew I meant Americans, and by that Americans alone) won the war
with a bit of help from you guys, of course." If I hadn't said it with a
light-hearted smile, I probably would have been run through with a broken
vodka bottle on the spot, not to send a message, but, as Saker notes, as a
pragmatic response to an arrogant Westerner.
Very interesting article with too many great points to comment on all.
Some of the best points are:
Plan B is also very simple: trigger a major crisis with Russia
It helps keep dollars flowing to the Pentagon and its Israeli masters.
a dream come true for the Neocons and a disaster for everybody else.
As always.
It bears repeating here that what the Neocons really want is what I
call a "tepid" war with Russia:
This also keeps the dollars flowing, keeps the usual nut cases in power
and provides a huge source of distraction from the continued hosing of the
American goyim,
One huge difference between the western culture and the way the
Russians (or the Chinese for that matter) look at geostrategy is that
westerners always look at everything in the short term and tactical
level.
I've noticed that as a teen and it's still true today. Seems to have
worked for the thugs in power, but not so much for the rest of us cattle.
Apparently the American doofi (aka doofusses) will remain content to prance
around waving their corny flags and proclaiming their "heroism" or whatever
BS is fashionable at the time.
Urgent Fury was hardly a war. Been there, done that, and hit the break at
Cherry Hill for a little surfing on day 4, 'cos the Rafters and Ivan don't
surf.
"Nobody-not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not
even the sleaziest defense contractor-could possibly look at America's
fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially
beneficial to anybody."
Oh you dear, sweet, but misguided soul. The war-profiteers and neo-cons
know that when things get fiscally tight they can simply print more of the
World's Indispensible Currency TM, and if it gets really bad they will
simply do a cram down of the debt, because the ROW doesn't really have a say
in the matter. When you owe the world $20T, it's the world that has the
problem.
The Russians are far better victory-strategists (long-term) than the US
maddogs Trump/Mattis/McMaster. They are for show and fireworks
(white-phosphorous bombs) and show theiir Satanic nature.
The final
Victory strategy = turn your ennemies into friends/partners in trade.
Putin has turned Erdogan into a partner with the south-stream pipeline.
And even Qatar may join the East front (Putin gave them majort shares in
Russian energy companies).
The Al Sauds and Likudi's, the Jewish extremists on Golan, are the only
problems left. But even with Netanyahu, Putin is trying to get a solution,
using the Russian Leviathan basin suppport.
@Rurik
It's amazing how rude the reporting of the incident in the MSM has been in
not reporting the fate of the pilot. The point is to underscore his
insignificance; they would have much preferred he was killed.
A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert
money into the connected people's bank accounts, funneling tax money
upwards.
A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the more
obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler
quote we've all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to
the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that "war is a
racket."
The problem is, it just isn't true. Nobody---not even the
Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense
contractor---could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and
conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something
else has to be motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.
These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians
against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also
rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.
However, I think it's time to retire the "war is a racket" meme. It has
no explanatory power in today's world. The age of imperial expansion, of
making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was
on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical
or economic rationale in Washington's war-making. Every war we fight makes
us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler's wars, however ignoble he thought the
motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists
of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of
worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have
only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber
barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.
The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These
are "existential" wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate
fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their
penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in
their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.
that something is Boomer vanity.
These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians
is all about vanity
insatiable egos.
What a dumb comment. It's all reducible to the personal psychology of a
particular generation, it's "all about vanity", all about "insatiable egos".
We're trying to have a serious discussion about important issues and random
comic book reading commenters insist on projecting their weird Freudian
fantasies onto everything.
Yeah, if everyone weren't so darn vain.
If it was shot down in Syria, ysure that
neocons would take to the Sunday morning TV programme and basically spoil
eveyone's breakfast.
Plus, Russia would certainly recount the why & wherefore of this
shootdown. It would be a "message".
After all, it's not as if you could sic an S-300 missile onto a Global
Hawk under a sudden panicky impulse. The Good Drone would be readily
identifiable as such (high-altitude, slow, possibly with a transponder on)
@The Alarmist
More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a
second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and
Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with
good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began
disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to
permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.
Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely
resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian
territory.
@KenH
Churchill never agreed, he wanted an invasion in the Adriatic.
For FDR Stalin was Uncle Joe, never for Churchill.
FDR died before Uncle Joe showed his real nature through the Berlin
blockade.
The obliteration of Dresden had not impressed him enough.
@KenH
More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a
second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and
Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with
good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began
disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to
permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.
Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely
resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian
territory.
More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a
second front via the D-Day invasion. . . Germany's army group center in
Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and
allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of
the war.
On D-Day the Red Army was already beyond the frontiers of Russia, having
entered northern Romania and (pre-War) Poland.
Three-term Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a member of both the Armed Services and Foreign
Affairs committees,
has proposed legislation that would prohibit any U.S. assistance to terrorist organizations in
Syria as well as to any organization working directly with them. Equally important, it would prohibit
U.S. military sales and other forms of military cooperation with other countries that provide arms
or financing to those terrorists and their collaborators.
Gabbard's
"Stop Arming Terrorists Act" challenges for the first time in Congress a U.S. policy toward the
conflict in the Syrian civil war that should have set off alarm bells long ago: in 2012-13 the Obama
administration helped its Sunni allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provide arms to Syrian and
non-Syrian armed groups to force President Bashar al-Assad out of power. And in 2013 the administration
began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be "relatively moderate" anti-Assad groups-meaning
they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism.
That policy, ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative,
has actually helped build up al Qaeda's Syrian franchise
al Nusra Front into the
dominant threat to Assad.
The supporters of this arms-supply policy believe it is necessary as pushback against Iranian
influence in Syria. But that argument skirts the real issue raised by the policy's history.
The Obama administration's Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed
to be the touchstone of the "Global War on Terrorism"-the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist
affiliates. The United States has instead subordinated that U.S. interest in counter-terrorism to
the interests of its Sunni allies. In doing so it has helped create a new terrorist threat in the
heart of the Middle East.
The policy of arming military groups committed to overthrowing the government of President Bashar
al-Assad began in September 2011, when President Barack Obama was pressed by his Sunni allies-Turkey,
Saudi Arabia and Qatar-to supply heavy weapons to a military opposition to Assad they were determined
to establish. Turkey and the Gulf regimes wanted the United States to provide anti-tank and anti-aircraft
weapons to the rebels,
according to a former Obama Administration official involved in Middle East issues.
Obama refused to provide arms to the opposition,
but he agreed to provide covert U.S. logistical help i n carrying out a campaign of military
assistance to arm opposition groups. CIA involvement in the arming of anti-Assad forces began with
arranging for the shipment of weapons from the stocks of the Gaddafi regime that had been stored
in Benghazi. CIA-controlled firms shipped the weapons from the military port of Benghazi to two small
ports in Syria using former U.S. military personnel to manage the logistics, as investigative reporter
Sy Hersh detailed in 2014 . The funding for the program came mainly from the Saudis.
A declassified October 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report revealed that the shipment in
late August 2012 had included 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG (rocket propelled grenade launchers) along
with 300 RPG rounds and 400 howitzers. Each arms shipment encompassed as many as ten shipping containers,
it reported, each of which held about 48,000 pounds of cargo. That suggests a total payload of up
to 250 tons of weapons per shipment. Even if the CIA had organized only one shipment per month, the
arms shipments would have totaled 2,750 tons of arms bound ultimately for Syria from October 2011
through August 2012. More likely it was a multiple of that figure.
The CIA's covert arms shipments from Libya came to an abrupt halt in September 2012 when Libyan
militants attacked and burned the embassy annex in Benghazi that had been used to support the operation.
By then, however, a much larger channel for arming anti-government forces was opening up. The CIA
put the Saudis in touch with a senior Croatian official
who had offered to sell large quantities of arms left over from the Balkan Wars of the 1990s.
And the CIA
helped them shop for weapons from arms dealers and governments in several other former Soviet
bloc countries.
Flush with weapons acquired from both the CIA Libya program and from the Croatians, the Saudis
and Qataris dramatically increased the number of flights by military cargo planes to Turkey in December
2012 and continued that intensive pace for the next two and a half months. The New York Times
reported a total 160 such flights through mid-March 2013. The most common cargo plane in use
in the Gulf, the Ilyushin
IL-76 , can carry roughly 50 tons of cargo on a flight, which would indicate that as much as
8,000 tons of weapons poured across the Turkish border into Syria just in late 2012 and in 2013.
One U.S. official called the new level of arms deliveries to Syrian rebels a "cataract of weaponry."
And a year-long investigation by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and the Organized
Crime and Corruption Reporting Project revealed that the Saudis were intent on building up a powerful
conventional army in Syria. The "end-use certificate" for weapons purchased from an arms company
in Belgrade, Serbia, in May 2013
includes 500
Soviet-designed PG-7VR rocket launchers that can penetrate even heavily-armored tanks, along with
two million rounds; 50 Konkurs anti-tank missile launchers and 500 missiles, 50 anti-aircraft guns
mounted on armored vehicles, 10,000 fragmentation rounds for OG-7 rocket launchers capable of piercing
heavy body armor; four truck-mounted BM-21 GRAD multiple rocket launchers, each of which fires 40
rockets at a time with a range of 12 to 19 miles, along with 20,000 GRAD rockets.
The end user document for
another Saudi order
from the same Serbian company listed 300 tanks, 2,000 RPG launchers, and 16,500 other rocket
launchers, one million rounds for ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns, and 315 million cartridges for various
other guns.
Those two purchases were
only a fraction of the totality of the arms obtained by the Saudis over the next few years from
eight Balkan nations. Investigators found that the Saudis made their biggest arms deals with former
Soviet bloc states in 2015, and that the weapons included many that had just come off factory production
lines. Nearly 40 percent of the arms the Saudis purchased from those countries, moreover, still had
not been delivered by early 2017. So the Saudis had already contracted for enough weaponry to keep
a large-scale conventional war in Syria going for several more years.
By far the most consequential single Saudi arms purchase was not from the Balkans, however, but
from the United States. It was the December 2013
U.S. sale of 15,000 TOW anti-tank missiles to the Saudis at a cost of about $1 billion-the result
of Obama's decision earlier that year to reverse his ban on lethal assistance to anti-Assad armed
groups. The Saudis had agreed, moreover, that those anti-tank missiles would be doled out to Syrian
groups only at U.S. discretion. The TOW missiles began to arrive in Syria in 2014 and soon had
a major impact on the military balance.
This flood of weapons into Syria, along with the entry of 20,000 foreign fighters into the country-primarily
through Turkey-largely defined the nature of the conflict. These armaments helped make al Qaeda's
Syrian franchise, al Nusra Front (now renamed Tahrir al-Sham or Levant Liberation Organization) and
its close allies by far the most powerful anti-Assad forces in Syria-
and gave rise to the Islamic State .
By late 2012, it became clear to U.S. officials that the largest share of the arms that began
flowing into Syria early in the year were going to the rapidly growing al Qaeda presence in the country.
In October 2012, U.S.
officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that "most"
of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance
during the previous year had gone to "hardline Islamic jihadists"- obviously meaning al Qaeda's Syrian
franchise, al Nusra.
Al Nusra Front and its allies became the main recipients of the weapons because the Saudis, Turks,
and Qataris wanted the arms to go to the military units that were most successful in attacking government
targets. And by the summer of 2012, al Nusra Front, buttressed by the thousands of foreign jihadists
pouring into the country across the Turkish border, was already
taking the lead in attacks on the Syrian government in coordination with "Free Syrian Army" brigades.
In November and December 2012, al Nusra Front began establishing formal "joint operations rooms"
with those calling themselves "Free Syrian Army" on several battlefronts, as Charles Lister chronicles
in his book The Syrian Jihad . One such commander favored by Washington was Col. Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi, a former Syrian
army officer who headed something called the Aleppo Revolutionary Military Council. Ambassador Robert
Ford, who continued to hold that position even after he had been withdrawn from Syria,
publicly visited Oqaidi
in May 2013 to express U.S. support for him and the FSA.
But Oqaidi and his troops were junior partners in a coalition in Aleppo in which al Nusra was
by far the strongest element. That reality is clearly
reflected in a video in
which Oqaidi describes his good relations with officials of the "Islamic State" and is shown joining
the main jihadist commander in the Aleppo region celebrating the capture of the Syrian government's
Menagh Air Base in September 2013.
By early 2013, in fact, the "Free Syrian Army," which had never actually been a military organization
with any troops, had ceased to have any real significance in the Syria conflict. New anti-Assad armed
groups had stopped using the name even as a "brand" to identify themselves, as a leading specialist
on the
conflict
observed.
So, when weapons from Turkey arrived at the various battlefronts, it was understood by all the
non-jihadist groups that they would be shared with al Nusra Front and its close allies.
A report by McClatchy in early 2013, on a town in north central Syria, showed how the military
arrangements between al Nusra and those brigades calling themselves "Free Syrian Army" governed the
distribution of weapons. One of those units, the Victory Brigade, had participated in a "joint operations
room" with al Qaeda's most important military ally, Ahrar al Sham, in a successful attack on a strategic
town a few weeks earlier. A visiting reporter watched that brigade and Ahrar al Sham show off new
sophisticated weapons that included Russian-made RPG27 shoulder-fired rocket-propelled anti-tank
grenades and RG6 grenade launchers.
When asked if the Victory Brigade had shared its new weapons with Ahrar al Sham, the latter's
spokesman responded, "Of course they share their weapons with us. We fight together."
Turkey and Qatar consciously chose al Qaeda and its closest ally, Ahrar al Sham, as the recipients
of weapons systems. In late 2013 and early 2014, several truckloads of arms bound for the province
of Hatay, just south of the Turkish border, were intercepted by Turkish police. They had Turkish
intelligence personnel on board,
according to later Turkish police court testimony . The province was controlled by Ahrar al Sham.
In fact Turkey soon began to treat Ahrar al Sham as its primary client in Syria, according to
Faysal Itani , a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.
A Qatari intelligence operative who had been involved in shipping arms to extremist groups in
Libya was a key figure in directing the flow of arms from Turkey into Syria. An Arab intelligence
source familiar with the discussions among the external suppliers near the Syrian border in Turkey
during those years told the Washington Post's
David Ignatius that when one of the participants warned that the outside powers were building
up the jihadists while the non-Islamist groups were withering away, the Qatari operative responded,
"I will send weapons to al Qaeda if it will help."
The Qataris did funnel arms to both al Nusra Front and Ahrar al Sham, according to a
Middle Eastern diplomatic source. The Obama administration's
National Security Council staff proposed in 2013 that the United States signal U.S. displeasure
with Qatar over its arming of extremists in both Syria and Libya by withdrawing a squadron of fighter
planes from the U.S. airbase at al-Udeid, Qatar. The Pentagon vetoed that mild form of pressure,
however, to protect its access to its base in Qatar.
President Obama himself confronted Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan over his government's support
for the jihadists at a private White House dinner in May 2013, as recounted by Hersh. "We know what
you're doing with the radicals in Syria," he quotes Obama as saying to Erdogan.
The administration addressed Turkey's cooperation with the al Nusra publicly, however, only fleetingly
in late 2014. Shortly after leaving Ankara, Francis Ricciardone, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from
2011 through mid-2014,
told The Daily Telegraph of London that Turkey had "worked with groups, frankly, for a
period, including al Nusra."
The closest Washington came to a public reprimand of its allies over the arming of terrorists
in Syria was when Vice President Joe Biden criticized their role in October 2014.
In impromptu remarks at Harvard University's Kennedy School, Biden complained that "our biggest
problem is our allies." The forces they had supplied with arms, he said, were "al Nusra and al Qaeda
and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world."
Biden quickly apologized
for the remarks, explaining that he didn't mean that U.S. allies had deliberately helped the
jihadists. But Ambassador Ford confirmed his complaint,
telling BBC , "What
Biden said about the allies aggravating the problem of extremism is true."
In June 2013 Obama
approved the first direct U.S. lethal military aid to rebel brigades that had been vetted by
the CIA By spring 2014, the U.S.-made BGM-71E anti-tank missiles from the 15,000 transferred to
the Saudis
began to appear in the hands of selected anti-Assad groups. But the CIA imposed the condition
that the group receiving them would not cooperate with the al Nusra Front or its allies.
That condition implied that Washington was supplying military groups that were strong enough to
maintain their independence from al Nusra Front. But the groups on the CIA's list of vetted "relatively
moderate" armed groups were all highly vulnerable to takeover by the al Qaeda affiliate. In November
2014, al Nusra Front troops struck the two strongest CIA-supported armed groups, Harakat Hazm and
the Syrian Revolutionary Front on successive days and seized their heavy weapons, including both
TOW anti-tank missiles and GRAD rockets.
In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al Nusra Front promptly
showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment they had captured from it. And in March
2016, al Nusra Front troops
attacked the headquarters of the 13th Division in northwestern Idlib province and seized all
of its TOW missiles. Later that month, al Nusra Front
released a video of its troops using the TOW missiles it had captured.
But that wasn't the only way for al Nusra Front to benefit from the CIA's largesse. Along with
its close ally Ahrar al Sham, the terrorist organization
began planning
for a campaign to take complete control of Idlib province in the winter of 2014-15. Abandoning
any pretense of distance from al Qaeda, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar worked with al Nusra on the
creation of a new military formation for Idlib called the "Army of Conquest," consisting of the al
Qaeda affiliate and its closest allies. Saudi Arabia and Qatar
provided more weapons for the campaign, while Turkey
facilitated their passage . On March 28, just four days after launching the campaign, the Army
of Conquest successfully gained control of Idlib City.
The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance were not part of
the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib the U.S.-led operations room for Syria
in southern Turkey signaled to the CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate
in the campaign to consolidate control over the rest of the province.
According to Lister
, the British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both jihadist and
other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan al haq brigade and Division 13,
did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra Front without any move by the CIA to cut them
off.
As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers,
and they now
used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a
new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between "relatively moderate"
groups and the al Nusra Front.
The new alliance was carried over to Aleppo, where jihadist groups close to Nusra Front formed
a new command called Fateh Halab ("Aleppo Conquest") with nine armed groups in Aleppo province which
were getting CIA assistance. The CIA-supported groups could claim that they weren't cooperating with
al Nusra Front because the al Qaeda franchise was not officially on the list of participants in the
command. But as the report on the new command
clearly implied , this was merely a way of allowing the CIA to continue providing weapons to
its clients, despite their de facto alliance with al Qaeda.
The significance of all this is clear: by helping its Sunni allies provide weapons to al Nusra
Front and its allies and by funneling into the war zone sophisticated weapons that were bound to
fall into al Nusra hands or strengthen their overall military position, U.S. policy has been largely
responsible for having extended al Qaeda's power across a significant part of Syrian territory. The
CIA and the Pentagon appear to be ready to tolerate such a betrayal of America's stated counter-terrorism
mission. Unless either Congress or the White House confronts that betrayal explicitly, as Tulsi Gabbard's
legislation would force them to do, U.S. policy will continue to be complicit in the consolidation
of power by al Qaeda in Syria, even if the Islamic State is defeated there.
Gareth Porter is an independent journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism.
He is the author of numerous books, including Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran
Nuclear Scare (Just World Books, 2014).
America has been doing the same thing in Syria that it did in Afghanistan in the 80s when they
armed and trained Bin Laden and the Mujahideen to create Al Qaeda and look what that led to 9/11
only this time their criminal actions of arming Jihadists have led to terrorist attacks in Europe.
I think the largest problem with US Foreign Policy is we are rather ignorant of any aspect of
the Middle East or its politics even after all that time in Iraq. It is almost embarrassing the
fact we are a society that seem to reward and encourage ignorance at all levels of it. At one
point in time many politicians lacked formal education yet they were all highly self educated.
Lincoln was a self trained lawyer from a humble background. I
Ignorance is not a virtue unless you are Orwellian in thought.
"ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative" – That
is the smartest insight of this story. US policy in the region strongly favors relatively secular
dictators. Democracy is seen as a total threat to "stability," brutal US-allied regimes. The US
should either stop meddling, or genuinely support democratic reform, but not lie to the American
people by meddling in the name of democracy.
Here is an excerpt from Tulsi Gabbard's Press release.
Why don't you publish it?
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda,
ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS,
we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly
supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups
with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.[i]
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
Could it get much worse? American wars in the Middle East have been a total disaster. For a while
it looked as if Trump might be the game changer, someone who would finally pull us out. Instead,
the situation is getting worse. ISIS is spreading like a cancer in Europe, with a flood of refugees
changing the character of Europe permanently perhaps. Meanwhile, the non-Islamist groups were
withering away" according to this article, because the US of all people are arming the terrorists.
Geez, I wonder if that makes the US a terrorist nation? (Sadly we recently had a choice of partnering
with Russia to wipe out ISIS, but we decided to play the sinister game of power politics instead.
Clearly the Turks, Saudis other Sunis have been aiding and abetting ISIS in various ways. We should
switch allegiance to Russia and Iran, IMO.)
So, the State Department's objective in the Middle East is to create a Sunnistan between the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers controlled by radical Sunni Islamists of whatever name they chose to call
themselves.
It seems Israel has signed off on this.
It also seems the Russians are saying "fine." But still the war goes on. Why?
Is it absolutely necessary that Syria be destroyed as well?
Why; is it because of Iran and it's puppets the rump of Iraq east of the Euphrates and Syria?
If this is the final outcome envisioned of what possible relevance is Afghanistan?
It would be wonderful to see some follow-on reporting by Gareth Porter. For example, on whether
there was any relation between Gen. Flynn's apparent opposition to this 'strategy' and the campaign
to get him out of the White House. Yeah, I know. He spoke with the Russian ambassador. Besides
that.
Every terrorist attack, every child that is killed in the UK and Europe, is just a case of terrorism
coming home, pigeons coming home to roost. What goes around comes around. It would be no more
than justice if London/ Paris/ Brussels, let alone Riyadh and Doha, one day looked like Damascus
does today. We have armed/ bankrolled/ trained this filth. They always bite the hand that feeds
them.
Yes. We know. The whole reason I voted for Trump, is because he looked as though he would end
this conflict. But it didn't happen. And what did I really expect? No morality, no promise is
solid.
We should have banned travel and withdrawn every US and NATO force from the area, down to the
last rifle. We are weakened from years of fighting and our enemies know it.
It's time we elected a non-rich, non-politician, common man to the office of President. Somebody
with outstanding morality and nothing to lose.
Trump doesn't seem to be delivering what I want. And he's not the leader I want.
I know what the leader I'm looking for is like. Wherever this man is, it's time he step forward.
If he doesn't, then I will, but chances are it will be too late by the time I am ready. So how
about one of millions of experienced adults show up for once. I'm tired of living my life, ruled
by lesser men. Give me somebody to support, for God's sake.
any form of military escalation would be fraught with grave risks
You know there is a saying falsely attributed to Churchill: "Those who choose shame between war
and shame they end up by getting both". Russia chose shame in 2014, but will inevitable get war.
Or hasn't it already? The "hybrid war", you know.
Or another saying: "Better a terrible end than an endless terror".
Your views on the Syrian intervention are convincing to me, Russia should definitely avoid
deeper involvement.
You pose a false ridiculous dilemma. How can a normal honest Russian equate some ragheads with
Russians and hesitate whom to help and where to intervene?
Imagine East Germany has not united with the West Germany, but instead become a fascist country
with a hostile anti-WG identity. Some people there want to WG anyway and they raise a rebellion,
so the Berlin regime starts to oppress and even bomb and kill them. At the same time WG has got an
opportunity to fight ISIS on the ground. So how do you think what an honest German from WG should
choose having the limited military resources? To help your German brothers nearby and intervene (or
occupy EG outright altogether) or to fight some damned ragheads somewhere far away in the damned
desert?
Exactly if Putin has chosen an intervention in Syria over an intervention in Ukraine he is just
saying to everybody that Russians do not matter but that Muslims do. When Putin was saying he's a
nationalist "of some sort" we now know of what sort of nationalists he is. Muslim and Ukrainian ones!
Or more generally any nationalists who are against Russians.
@Western Solidarity
I will be brief here. Right now we are entering uncharted waters in Russo-American relations.
What the investigations of Trump's ties to the Kremlin or at least to the Russian Mafia will reveal
remains to be seen. Meanwhile the U.S. Senate is rushing to put more sanctions on Russia for alleged
meddling in America's elections last year. This is simply insane. Russia and America have the
two largest nuclear arsenals on earth. Russia sits at the crossroads of Asia, Europe and the Middle
East and is Europe's first line of defense from invasion from the Orient or Moslem Middle East.
Russia's help is need to settle the Syrian civil war, end the Ukrainian crisis, keep Iran nuclear
free, de=fang North Korea and curb China's growing appetite and ambition for worldwide resources,
markets and "adventures". The U.S. should be working with Russia to manage these issues and make
Western solidarity not just a slogan but a reality. Instead the Congress is going all out to alienate
and aggravate the Russian Bear. I fear that one day President Putin will tire of the persecution
of Russia and her proud people and the demonization of his regime and give orders to send long
range nuclear missiles and atomic warheads to both North Korea and Iran.
Russia shares borders with both and could easily ship these weapons in piecemeal by train,
truck, ship and plane to the tyrants in power in those countries and send technicians to assemble
them and train the North Koreans and Iranians on how to use them.
This is I know a nightmare scenario, but it could easily occur. At that point two of America's
closest dependents, Israel and Japan, would be directly threatened by virulent dictators. How
would America react?
What could or would the U.S. President do to "retaliate"? This is very, very serious and Congress
needs to stop playing games and realize it is vital to America's peace and security to be friends
or at least neutral with Russia and work with them on areas of common agreement and need such
as stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, settling ongoing wars, stopping the migrant
invasion of Europe, etc., etc. Otherwise it could literally come to World War II and the end of
the planet. No joking matter my friends.
Russia's help is need to settle the Syrian civil war, end the Ukrainian crisis, keep Iran
nuclear free, de=fang North Korea and curb China's growing appetite and ambition for worldwide
resources, markets and "adventures".
Except that the US doesn't really want to settle the Syrian war. Without permanent Jihad, how
could Washington ever justify a permanent 'War on Terror'? Ditto Ukraine: they need a constant
crisis there to isolate the Europe from Russia. They did not appreciate Putin's attempts at improving
relations with Europe–Germany, especially–since coming to power in 1999. The Norks' nukes don't
threaten Russia in the slightest–Russia has more than enough of a deterrent to handle such a small,
isolated country. And Iran and Russia now have quite goods relations, and Iran still doesn't have
a bomb. As far as China's resource appetites are concerned, well, that actually benefits Russia,
as China is now one of their largest customers, both for natural resources as well as defense/aerospace
technology.
DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS: ONE BIRD, 2 WINGS . SAME SHIT
UKRAINE meddled in US 2016 election. In conspiracy to blackmail Trump, Ukraine provided DNC with false accusations against
Manafort, hoping to derail Trump and install Deep State figurehead Hillary Clinton.
See the timeline, and smoking-gun email from Alexandra Chalupa. To steal election, DNC fabricated Trump-Russian collusion stories
which have poisoned US-Russia relations in this administration and stoked impeachment fever. Anti-Russian hysteria serves Israel
by killing Syria & Iran diplomacy. Great journalism by Lee Stranahan.
The fabricated collusion stories strike me as efforts to force Trump to put the US on an aggressive war footing against Russia
in Syria and elsewhere. As such the constitute war crimes efforts and are not only criminal, but stupid in light of the unnecessary
risk they put us to.
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
"... US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran ..."
"... And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing. ..."
US policy in the Middle East and South Asia is shaped by several basic considerations:
US Imperialism is the force of global domination
US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah),
Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran.
The return of Iran to the status of puppet regime will advance Washington's ultimate goal of encircling and isolating Russia
and China.
The US overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran will facilitate Israel's final seizure of Palestine, including Jerusalem,
and establish Tel Aviv as the dominant regional power in the Middle East.
Washington's 'Two Track' Policy for Domination
US strategic planners rely on a two-track policy , combining and blending military and ideological weapons.
Its military strategy relies on slicing up the Middle East - 'salami tactics' – invading and conquering of each and every
country and government, which shares the Islamic Republic of Iran's policy of national sovereignty and independence. US military
success or failure depends on its alliances in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. The US, Saudi Arabia and Israel all sponsor
terrorist groups which have attacked Iran's scientists, its elected representatives and military leaders, as well as its sacred sites
– inside Iran as well as abroad.
The political and ideological strategy involves the penetration and organization of domestic forces to destabilize and weaken
Iran's internal security, defense capability and overseas alliances.
Ideological warfare involves: (1) exploiting regional, ethnic, class and religious differences to undermine stability and fragment
the country; and (2) converting legitimate social critics and political opposition parties into imperial collaborators.
Ideological attacks are designed to attract Iranian writers, academics, intellectuals and artists who choose to ignore the history
of US imperialism in fomenting bloody coups (Mossadegh 1954), launching proxy wars via Saddam Hussain's invasion (1980- 88) and the
terrorist attacks by Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the terrorists backed by Iraq's former dictator.
US propaganda intervention in Iran's electoral process has been designed to promote a so-called "color revolution" regime
change favored by neo-liberal, pro-West parties and candidates who seek US sponsorship in their ascent to power. The imperial collaborators
and various Western 'human rights' NGOs hide the sordid history of Washington's overt and proxy wars/coups and occupations in Syria,
Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Palestine.
In order to intimidate and weaken overseas and domestic allies; and the (4) financing and arming of terrorists from Europe, the
Middle East and North Africa to attack the Islamic Republic.
Linguistic and Conceptual Perversions
Imperial warfare depends on perverting political language and concepts. The US refers to invasion, which have killed and maimed
millions of Muslims and Christians in Iraq (2003-2017) and Syria (2011-2017) as 'humanitarian interventions'. In reality its policy
described an ongoing 'holocaust' – the massive genocidal violation of the human rights of scores of millions of people to sovereignty,
peace and security of home, life, limb, culture and faith.
The millions of victims of the West's current holocaust in the Middle East reject and scorn Washington's imperialist claim of
defending 'democratic values' and its so called 'responsibility to protect (R2P) ' as pronounced by a series of US Administrations
through their mouthpieces in the United Nations.
In contrast, US support for the Saudi monarch's brutal bombing and blockade of Yemen has led to an entire population facing starvation
and a massive, cholera epidemic, which now threatens over 26 million Yeminis. The campaign against Yemen by the brutal Saudis and
their US-EU allies is the very definition of crimes against humanity and international law.
Sanctions: A Tool of Conquest
US sanctions against Iraq, Syria, Iran and Yemen have been designed to starve working people into submission while capturing the
support of some middle class consumers. US policy of invading Libya and brutally murdering President Gadhafi and his family members
was designed to systematically destroy a prosperous, independent republic and turn it into a backward, impoverished fiefdom of tribal
warlords, exploited by Western oil companies. Saudi Arabia joined the European Union in financing terrorists, many trained in the
destroyed remnants of Libya, who later killed innocent civilians in Paris, Nice, London, Manchester and other parts of Europe.
The strategic goal of the US invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen has been to violently divide these independent republics and turn
them into ethnically cleansed, impoverished, mini-states – in the imperial tradition of 'divide and conquer'. Such tribal fiefdoms
are easily dominated by imperial powers.
Regional and Global Strategy
Washington's imperial strategists have arrived at the conclusion that they cannot conquer independent states, like Iran, in a
single attack, given its size, defense capability, internal cohesion and regional alliances.
Their strategy is to surround Iran by destroying its allies, one nation at a time.
The first phase of the US invasion, occupation and systematic destruction of Iraq and its entire governmental infrastructure was
designed to overthrow the Baathist state, then neutralize the Shi'a militia and impose a servile client regime in Baghdad. The second
step was to encourage Sunni tribal warlords to seize control of central Iraq. The third step was to arm the Kurds to form a mini-state
in northern Iraq (so-called "Kurdistan"). This would entail large-scale ethnic cleansing, the total destruction of Iraq's ancient
Christian community, the extermination of its multiethnic modern educated, scientific, cultural and technocratic work force. In other
words, the US strategy was to obliterate any remnant of the Iraqi Republic in its war to 'remake the Middle East'.
After Iraq and Libya, the next target for US-EU aggression has been the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran's ally. The
EU, USA, Saudi Arabia and Turkey sponsored an invasion by mercenary Salafi forces under a network of Daesh-ISIS-al Queda terrorists.
Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have provided military, logistical and financial support to the terrorists.
After Syria, the fourth target of Anglo-American-Saudi-Israeli military strategy would be to undermine the national sovereignty
of Lebanon and destroy the armed political Hezbollah Party, the powerful Lebanese resistance organization (allied with Iran). It
was consistent with this strategy for the West to support Israel's brutal air and ground attacks against the civilian population
and infrastructure of Beirut, Lebanese port cities and villages. Tens of thousands of Lebanese Christians were not spared the Israeli
terror bombing campaign.
If a Lebanese campaign were successful and Hezbollah was destroyed, the 'final' Israeli conquest of Palestine, the fifth
objective, could commence: US and world Zionism would unconditionally celebrate Israel's massive ethnic purge of Palestine's native
peoples and finish off the total confiscation of the homes, mosques, churches, land and resources of millions of Muslim and Christian
Palestinians and other peoples. This would create history's first 'pure Jewish' state.
The sixth imperial objective would be to disarm Iran's military and security structure and weaken its economy in order to isolate
the Islamic Republic and undermine its Middle Eastern alliances. This strategic objective explains why Washington promotes its one-sided
nuclear arms agreement with Iran, while the nuclear-armed Israel is excluded! Despite Iran's abiding by the terms of the agreement,
there have been no reciprocal lifting of economic sanctions or the normalization of trade and diplomatic relations.
Iran Counters the US Global Military Threat
Iran responded by developing economic, technical and military agreements with Russia and China in order to counter the US-Israeli-Saudi
threats and sanctions. Russia provides advanced defensive weapons systems. China signs large-scale, long-term trade agreements while
including Iran in its huge Central Asian infrastructure projects. Most importantly, Iran has succeeded in defending the legitimate
government of Syria, while aiding Iraq and Yemen.
Iran undermined official US sanctions by signing multi-billion dollar agreements with the giant Boeing Corporation for the purchase
of passenger airplanes as well as developing further agreements with US banks and agro-business exporters and oil companies. These
profitable agreements with the US agro-business export sector can weaken the Pentagon-Zionist sanctions.
Iran has the diplomatic support of the Non-Aligned Movement opposing Israeli-US Zionist military threats.
Iran's principled opposition to Saudi Arabia's massive arms purchases, as well as the Kingdom's vicious alliance with Israel and
its genocidal assault against the Yemeni people, has gained the support of world public opinion – especially the masses of independent
Muslims throughout the world.
Iran's educational, scientific, military and political-electoral advances provide the basis for national security, economic growth,
cultural enrichment, international alliances and the deepening of social democracy for its people. It provides an alternative independent
vision for many millions of Muslims living under harsh monarchies, military dictators and imperial oppression.
Conclusion
Since the US and its allies launched their 'hot war' by surrounding, threatening and destabilizing Iran, Washington's strategy
has suffered serious military defeats and political retreats.
Iraq is no longer encircled by the US. Shia-based militias have regional control, especially south of Baghdad and beyond. Syria,
Iran's ally, has fought hard to finally liberate many towns, cities and territory taken by the terrorist mercenaries despite the
EU-US-Saudi-Israel's initial advances.
Rival rebel forces and mercenary gangsters besiege the US puppet governments in Libya, Somalia and South Sudan. The classic CIA
term, 'blowback', means these terrorists are now turning their guns on the West.
Washington has lost control of Afghanistan. Over a third of the Afghan military and police recruits defect to the resistance fighters.
The central 'government' in Kabul influences less than a quarter of the country
Despite spending trillions of dollars on wars and propaganda over the past two decades, US military strategy to encircle and conquer
Iran has been a military, diplomatic and economic failure. The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic
economy is in permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.
Despite US congressional, Presidential and Pentagon support for Israel's Jewish colonization of Palestine, more countries, trade
unions and social movements, around the world, support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel than ever
before. Manu are speaking up despite government threats to outlaw 'criticism of Israel' as a 'hate crime'.
The turmoil and deep political divisions in the United States between the oligarchs allied to President Trump and the opposition
oligarchs have created a profound institutional crisis, which has undermined domestic governance and disrupted US global alliances,
US-EU relations and US-Asian trade links.
Despite the bizarre and often theatrical presentation by the US mass media, the American Congress and President Trump are fighting
over fundamental issues, including control of the national security agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc.), foreign and
military policy, the economy and environmental agenda, the federal budget, judiciary and the Presidency.
The political crisis has paralyzed the capacity of the US to start new wars and negotiate international agreements. President
Trump is facing a serious coup d'état involving the political-intelligence elite, with the military looking warily on the chaos.
The masses are increasingly polarized or disgusted.
In an attempt to deflect from his domestic problems, President Trump deepened the US alliance with Saudi Arabia and reiterated
threats against Iran. Nevertheless he declined pressure to move the US embassy to Israel. The inconsistent and ad hoc nature of current
US policy alienates friends and foes – with no redeeming features.
The domestic opposition demands an end of President Trump's diplomatic overtures to Russia. It uses the fake pretext of Russian
interference in the US presidential election to move toward the president's impeachment.
The US faces a CLANDESTINE CIVIL WAR among its elite!
A financial bubble accompanies the American domestic political crisis. The economic elite, the banks and stock market have benefited
through speculation, despite or because of, the paralysis among rival political oligarchs!
The emergence of Trump's so-called 'national-capitalist ideology' means a decline in US multi-lateral agreements, such
as NATO, the EU, NAFTA and the Trans-
Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP). This explains Trump's effort to renegotiate bilateral agreements, which have failed
Trump's stated policy objectives have fallen between two chairs: the multi-lateral agreements have not been replaced by lucrative
bilateral deals. Trump relies on big business offerings and 'nationalist' ideology to minimize his diplomatic failures and ideological
isolation. Trump wants to win contracts for greater US exports and investment. This has been weakened by the previous administration's
pursuit of economic sanctions and expanding wars, as well as his feckless propaganda.
The Trump regime is full of contradictions: It threatens to end the nuclear agreement with Iran but allows Boeing to sell billions
of dollars of civilian aircraft to Teheran. It signs a $300 billion dollar arms sales agreement with Saudi Arabia (business for the
for military industries) while losing political influence in the US, where the Saudis are widely despised.
At least, Trump does not blather on about humanitarian wars; he would prefer signing business deals. He mentions the need for
'regime change' in Syria and sending more troops to Afghanistan but does little to implement these goals.
President Trump is fighting for his own political (and personal) survival and to prevent his impeachment (via a Congressional
coup). His strongest defense would be to strengthen the domestic economy and show some overseas economic successes.
Essentially, Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars. That was one of his campaign
promises that resonated with the nation's core electorate.
Trump would like to balkanize Syria, while avoiding new troop commitments to Afghanistan. He would prefer profitable trade relations
with Russia and China and perhaps, Iran, over war.
The impediments to any Trump policy success are massive: Trump's Administration includes zealous neo-conservative Russophobes
and Zionist-Iranophobes. These are militarists who would provoke eventual armed conflict with Moscow and Teheran. Their current focus
is on expanding the war in Syria, sending more US troops to Afghanistan and forging deeper ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The current internal political contradictions between the Trump regime and the 'Deep' State apparatus, and between the
Trump-allied business elite and the Zionist-neoconservative warmongers, preclude the development of a consequential Trump foreign
policy.
In the meantime, domestic political warfare and the deepening divisions between the US and EU will create opportunities for Russia,
China and Iran to join together in historic economic political and alliances, which might help re-balance a world on the brink of
'world war', economic collapse and environmental disaster.
The divisions among NATO countries undermine the establishment of a united front for greater imperial wars. The fragmentation
of the European Union (Brexit, the collapse of Greece, the EU-sponsored putsch in Ukraine) lessens its global economic influence.
The division between the US Presidential regime and the Opposition Security State apparatus paralyzes the US push for new imperial
wars.
Divisions and conflicts within the imperial camp presents favorable opportunities for anti-imperialist countries in the Middle
East, like Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
The strategic Russo-Chinese economic alliance may create a new global economy based on peaceful co-existence and greater economic
co-operation.
This essay is dedicated to the memory of the innocent martyrs of the recent brutal terrorist attacks against the Iranian Parliament
and the holy shrine and to honor the brave survivors and family members of the victims.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 63 books
published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal
of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles
in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New
Left Review, Partisan Review, Temps Moderne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. His publishers
have included Random House, John Wiley, Westview, Routledge, Macmillan, Verso, Zed Books and Pluto Books. He is winner of the Life
Time Career Award, Marxist Section, of the American Sociology Association, the Robert Kenny Award for Best Book, 2002, and the Best
Dissertation, Western Political Science Association in 1968. Some recent titles include Unmasking Globalization: Imperialism of the
Twenty-First Century (2001); co-author The Dynamics of Social Change in Latin America (2000), Unmasking Globalisation (2001), System
in Crisis (2003), co-author Social Movements and State Power (2003), co-author Empire With Imperialism (2005), co-author) Multinationals
on Trial (2006). His most recent title, The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press, Inc. 2006), has been acquired for
Japanese, German, Italian, Indonesian and Arabic editions.He received his MA and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.
Among his books:
A perfect article beyond any possible comments. Mr. Petras hits a perfect score as he often does. A dispassionate, lucid and
thorough analysis of the greater geopolitical world that could teach the half brained and crooked congressional representatives
a great many lessons.
Mr. Petras, my hats off to you. This is the most to-the-point, honest assessment of what's going on I've read in a long time.
My only complaint is the use of the term "Middle East". We should all drop this British colonial era term and just call it
what it is: Southwest Asia. Please don't take that as being nit-picky and looking for fault (not my intention at all) your article
is brilliant. But we have to start somewhere.
@Joe Levantine Is it possible that many representatives know quite well what's going on, but have reasons, their own political
survival, to pretend they do not know ?
Senator Hollings just dared to speak the truth shortly before he resigned, in 2004.
With respect to Israel's supposedly assigned role, I beg to differ. The US, like Russia and Iran, is an assimilative empire,
established on the basis of welcoming and incorporating any group or individual willing to adopt the imperial culture and language.
In other words, these are non-exclusive states. Israel, on the other hand, is built on rigid and comprehensive racial and religious
exclusiveness. Only jews can join. Israel is the quintessential nation state, built on an antiquated, romantic 19th-century idea.
The self-defeating and ultimately untenable model of the nation state was demonstrated unequivocally in 1945, but ignoring historical
proof, Israel resuscitated it in 1948. Therefore, it would seem to me Israel can never become the dominant force in the Middle
East. Even if it somehow succeeds in attaining this position, it will definitely be of a very short duration. It is a bit like
what Guizot once remarked: you can do anything with a bayonet, except sit on it.
1. Could have used a bit of information on the Rothschilds and other dominant Jewish Banking Family Oligarchs, including
their role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy (the last Constitutional President of the United States ), on November
22, 1963, in the Coup D'etat in Dallas, (the first successful Modern Arab Spring ).
2. Could have benefitted by references to the horrors of Vietnam and Indonesia (1965), 9/11, and the attack on the Liberty,
among other dark pages of recent history, which would have taken a sentence.
3. Could have used a bit of a VISION advocacy of how to Cure this Zionist imperialist plague so nicely described
by Petras. The Restoration of the Republic, destroyed on November 22, 1963, is the Revolutionary Cure so ignored by the
earnest and not so earnest critics of the Zionist New World Order.
As USA internal rot accelerates she is becoming increasingly erratic and desperate in her international policy. It increasingly
looks like biten by white shark seal trashing desperately in the water while life along with blood leaving it's body. Others should
keep their cool and patiently wait.
"2) US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon
(Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime
in Teheran."
And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any
guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing.
How many Americans and Europeans realize that all Islamic terrorism in the West is Sunni and none of it is Shia, and that all
the demonization of Iran and Hezbollah is solely for the benefit of Israel?
If I were to offer any suggestion, I'd just prefer that the author amend the abbreviation of the US to the Z US (Zionist
occupied US), as all of the things he mentions that the US is doing, are all in direct contravention of the principles and interests
and people of the actual US, and are, rather, all being done to benefit the most sinister and intractable enemy of the of the
US (and so many others including Iran); the Z US.
The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is in permanent crisis with massive unemployment,
poverty, recession and stagnation.
Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars. That was one of his campaign promises
that resonated with the nation's core electorate.
I spell out my case for calling it the ZUS here:
(which I invite the moderators to including under a blue 'more' link so as not to clutter up the comment section)
saying US, by which I do not mean ordinary US people then the rotten elite running the show.
I sort of know that, but I hope you (and others) can understand why that distinction is so important to us genuine Americans
who're horrified at the conduct of the US government on the world's stage.
The interests of the US government vs. the people of the US, could not be more diametrically opposed. They're looting our
Treasury and our future to fund eternal wars for Israel- that do nothing but destroy any kind of long-term hope for this country.
They're creating hatred for the American people that will reverberate over generations. They're systematically dismantling
our sacred codified rights (earned in blood) going all the way back to the Magna Carta. They assassinate our citizens if they
prove inconvenient to the regime, when they aren't burning them alive at places like Waco or the World Trade Center. There
seems to be nothing too demonic that this government will do to us American citizens if they suspect that by doing so it will
somehow augment their power to dominate us even more.
Today in America is much like the Russians during the Bolshevik / Soviet regime. Our government is our most intractable
and dangerous enemy on the planet. We Americans have nothing to fear from Russia or Iran. That's laughable. But we have everything
to fear from Washington DC. The drooling fiend that inhabits those think tanks and J-Street and K-Street and CFR and PNAC and
CIA and all the other acronyms of Satan are our worst enemy on this planet, just as they threaten and menace the rest of the
people of the planet, intending to use our children as cannon fodder even as they commit endless atrocities and war crimes
in our name.
So I guess my point is just that the interests of the US [zio-government], vs. the interests of the US people are so wildly
at odds, that it would be nice if others could see this as glaringly as those of us American citizens, watching with horror-
as our government perpetrates monstrous crimes all over the globe, and here at home.
The banking cartels are not run by patriotic American citizens, they're run by our enemies.
The Pentagon is not run by patriotic American citizens, it's run by our enemies.
the FBI and CIA and DEA and NSA are all operated by the enemies of the American people.
the media are the most sinister and committed enemy we have. No one hates our guts more.
the universities are nothing but kosher Marxist indoctrination centers, telling our young people (among other things) that
the "US" liberated the people of Kosovo. (is that what happened?). They tell our students that our participation in the world
wars was honorable and noble. They tell them that what we are doing in the Middle East today is honorable and noble. They even
are attempting to make any criticism of Israel a crime on the universities and campuses. Outlawing any expression of support
for the BDS movement. Does that sound like our universities are run by and for Americans?!
there are two entities here in the good ol' US of A. There is the ZUSA, that is an enemy to all of mankind, including the
people of the US. And then there are the people of the US; represented by those who still cling to quaint notions like the
Rule of Law, and our traditions like freedom of speech and fair play. People like Michael Hastings. People like Seth Rich.
People like Pat Tillman or Ron Paul or all of his supporters. People like the ones that voted for Obama to end the wars, and
who voted for Trump to end the wars. People like Ken O'keefe, who are Americans to the core, and still represent the spirit
of what being an American was all about, until our nation was hijacked in 1913 for the greater glory of $atan.
the US goal in former Yugoslavia was primarily a rejuvenation of NATO which has lost its meaning with the demise of SU.
Also, the Demoncrats have a natural propensity to package their imperialism into "humanitarian" interventions, the Republicans
are much less sleazy – the Republicans just say you are with us or against us, no matter whether what we do is legal or
illegal. Therefore, it was a perfect little war for the Clintons:
1) breath a new life into NATO,
2) clean up the Southern Europe of any residual Russia and/or socialist influence and
3) do a dress rehearsal for attacking Russia (using NATO).
sounds like a perfectly excellent analysis to me.
I remember how we scrambled at the time to make sense of it. WTF were they up to?!
why were they bombing a nation that had been 'our' ally during WWII, and seemingly so that some KLA terrorists could lay
claim to their ancient and sacred lands? Hard won from the same Muslim hoards that had drenched Kosovo in Christian, Serbian
blood for centuries.
Some of us figured it was kind of a payback for Palestine. 'Yes, we zio-scum are ravaging your people in Palestine, but
as payback, we'll give you Kosovo!
We even wondered if there wasn't some secret, high-level negotiations going on between the representatives of Islam and
the Zionists. 'OK, what do you want for Palestine?' / 'We'll take Kosovo'.
Then there was general Clarks quote regarding the necessity of bombing Serbia:
"Let's not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's
a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states."
- General Wesley Clark
so it's been a conundrum, but your analysis sounds like the best so far.
travelling NGO EcoSystem
:-)
Yes we see it all over the place. But also please keep in mind that the original NGO that $ubverted and corrupted is the
one that took control of the US.
The actions of the 'US' (ZUSA) today are no more a representation of the people of the US, than those in Kyiv or Kabul represent
the typical Ukrainian or Afghan.
Washington DC no more represents the 300+ million people here than did the actions of Mubarak represented the Egyptian people,
or Yeltsin represented the Russian people, or Tony Blair represented the people of England.
We have all of us been NGO'd by the Fiend, and none more so than us here in the US, where they declare from their pulpits
that there is 'zero daylight between Israel and the ZUSA!'
So it stings to read about how this or that benefits the US, when all the benefits are going to the very same Beast that
is drooling its putrid saliva all over US too.
Ukraine is now debt slave. Debt slave is not an independent country. No way. It is a
neo-colony.
Notable quotes:
"... The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing short of mind-boggling and unprecedented. ..."
Why Ukrainians of course, it's their country after all.
" it's their country after all."
Their country?
Ukraine had ceased to exist as an independent country in 2014, with arrival
of Nuland (ziocon) and Brennan (the CIA). Hence the spectacular appointments of
Misha Saakishvilli (wanted in his native Georgia), Natali Yaresko (an American
felon), Pravyj sector (local neo-nazi), and finally, Groysman, a Jewish
entrepreneur and current prime minister of Ukraine. Jews make 0.4% of Ukrainian
population:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-the-world
"While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi,
the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington - the CIA, the National Endowment
for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs
- was on the ground in Kiev assisting the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's
constitutionally elected President and Russian ally.
From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably
followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia and its leader.
So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a better outcome -
especially after Russia moved to protect its legitimate interests in its own
backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine. That
included protecting its 200-year old naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea."
Moreover, the Ukrainian territory is the result of Soviet annexations of
Rumanian, Polish, and Hungarian territories; without the generous provisions by
the USSR, Ukraine would be a puny patch of land:
http://ukrmap.su/en-uh10/273.html
Get it, boys and girls? Everyone owes it to Ukraine to "put her on her feet".
Russia owes her gas transit, buying everything Ukraine (less and less)
produces. And, of course, Ukraine's main idea about Europe, as even her former
President still thinks so, is to get to EU, get a truck load of free money (aka
investments) and start living as European upper middle class. I am not
exaggerating. Of course, the fact that Ukraine became what it became by 1990
was largely thanks to the Soviet economic system somehow got lost on such
people as Kuchma, not to speak of very many average Ukrainians.
The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine
achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing
short of mind-boggling and unprecedented.
There was no so-called 'invasion' of Ukraine by
Russia.
There was however an illegal invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq – 7,000 away from US – by
US and UK ( .admitted as being illegal by Lord Prescott), resulting in its total destruction
as a functioning State, and causing the deaths of something like 500,000 Iraqis, most of them
civilians. The bloody aftermath of that criminal, illegal act by US&UK continues to this day.
Death, destruction, dislocation.
US has also invaded another sovereign State, Syria: US troops and air force are present and
conducting military operations in sovereign land and airspace of Syria. All without the permission
of the Syrian government. Unlike Russia, from which Syria officially requested military assistance.
So stop lecturing anybody about the so-called 'invasion' of Ukraine by RF.
{ after the deceitful land grab by Russia of Crimea }
You can't, quote, 'grab' something that belongs to you.
Crimea has been part of Russia for 200+ years.
In 1954 Soviet dictator Khrushchev "gave" Crimea to Ukraine SSR, without asking the residents
of Crimea.
After the dissolution of USSR, residents of Crimea held declarations and referendums:
1992: Crimea declared Independence. Kiev ignored it.
1994: Autonomy referendum. Passed by ~80%. Kiev ignored it.
After the 2014 neo-Nazi putsch in Kiev, the neo-Nazi Azov battalion and other neo-Nazi gangs
started murdering ethnic Russians, e.g. the Odessa Massacre. Not wanting a replay of Operation
Barbarossa in Crimea, its residents held a referendum in 2014 to re-join Russia: passed by 96%+.
Done. Thank you very much.
By comparison, BREXIT passed 52% to 48%.
So that somehow has more "legality" ?
btw: most of so-called 'Ukraine' are Russian lands attached* to Ukraine by various Russian
Tsars and dictators. In time, they will all be promptly returned to Mother Russia.
Say, do you remember when US deceitfully grabbed the territory of Hawaii?
The only thing that Russia wanted from Ukraine is not to allow themselves to become threat
to Russia by joining NATO. Ukraine, having wasted all other options for normal development,
couldn't resist taking the offer of cashing in on becoming a threat to Russia. Ukraine tries
to justify this based on some past historical grievances from the 1930's.
What total lunacy and hippocracy. Do I really need to remind you that before 2014 and the Russian
invasion of Ukraine, NATO membership was not a popular option for most Ukrainians. But now, after
the deceitful land grab by Russia of Crimea and three years of proxy directed war in Donbas orchestrated
in Moscow, most Ukrainians now look favorably towards NATO membership. Latest polls show that
55.9% o Ukrainians now favor NATO integration (I think that pre 2014 it was less than 15%) and
66.4% now favor EU integration. You reap what you sew, Putinista fanboys. Bye, bye 'NovoRossiya'!
How can you steal something that's yours? Think of Crimea as the wedding ring. Once the
marriage was dissolved – the ring goes back to its rightful owner. At the time Khruschev gifted
Crimea to Ukraine, no one in their wildest dreams imagined that Russia and Ukraine would one day
go their separate ways. Crimea was to be part of Ukraine only as long as Ukraine was part of the
same country as Russia. Otherwise, Russia would have never agreed to cede Crimea. I guess following
the marriage analogy, NovoRossiya would be the dowry. Ukraine can lose that too if they don't
smarten up.
When a Briton or American speaks about a "four-letter word", he means a vulgar sexual term, a
word not to be mentioned in polite society. In Israel we also have such a word, a word of four letters.
A word not to mention. This word is "Shalom", peace. (In Hebrew, "sh" is one letter, and the "a"
is not written.)
For years now this word has disappeared from intercourse (except as a greeting). Every politician
knows that it is deadly. Every citizen knows that it is unmentionable. There are many words to replace
it. "Political agreement". "Separation". "We are here and they are there". "Regional arrangement".
To name a few.
And here comes Donald Trump and brings the word up again. Trump, a complete ignoramus, does not
know that in this country it is taboo.
He wants to make peace here. SH-A-L-O-M. So he says. True, there is not the slightest chance that
he really will make peace. But he has brought the word back into the language. Now people speak again
about peace. Shalom.
Peace? What is peace?
There are all kind of peaces. Starting from a little peace, a baby-peace, to a large, even mighty
peace.
Therefore, before opening a serious debate about peace, we must define what we mean. An intermission
between two wars? Non-belligerence? Existence on different sides of walls and fences? A prolonged
armistice? A Hudna (in Arabic culture, an armistice with a fixed expiry date)?
Something like the peace between India and Pakistan? The peace between Germany and France – and
if so, the peace before World War I or the peace prevailing now? The Cold War between the Soviet
Union and the United States, or the Hot Peace between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump?
There are all kinds of peace situations. What kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace are we talking
about? The peace between a horse and its rider? The peace between a people of masters and a people
of slaves? Something like the peace between the South African Apartheid regime and the Bantustans
it had created for the Blacks? Or a quite different kind of peace, a peace between equals?
It's about this peace I would like to speak. Not "real" peace. Not "perfect" peace. Not "complete"
peace.
About peace. Peace pure and simple. Without qualifications, please.
When did it all start? The conflict that now dominates the lives of the two peoples, when did
it begin?
Hard to say.
It is easy to say: it started when the first Jewish immigrant reached these shores.
Sounds simple. But it is not altogether true.
It seems that the pre-Zionist Bilu immigrants, who came here in the early 1800s, did not arouse
hostility.
I have a theory about that: some time before the Bilu (short for "House of Jacob, Go!") came here,
a religious German sect, the Templers, settled in this country. They had no political aims, just
a religious vision. They set up model villages and townships, and the locals were grateful. When
the first Jews arrived, the locals assumed that this was more of the same.
Then came the Zionist movement, which definitely had political aims. They spoke only about a "national
home", but the founder, Theodor Herzl, had previously written a book called "The Jewish State" (or,
more accurately, "The Jewstate"). The aim was hidden for a time, because the country belonged to
the Ottoman Empire.
Only very few of the local population realized right from the beginning that this was a mortal
danger for them. A large majority of the Muslims saw the Jews only as an inferior religious community,
which the Prophet had commanded them to protect.
So when did the conflict start? There are various theories about that. I adhere to the theory
of the almost-forgotten historian Aharon Cohen, who pointed to a particular event. In 1908, the revolution
of the "Young Turks" broke out. The Islamic Ottoman Empire turned into a nationalist state. As a
reaction, there arose in Palestine and the neighboring countries an Arab national movement, which
called for the "decentralization" of the empire, giving autonomy to its many peoples.
A local Arab leader approached the Zionist representative in Jerusalem with a tempting offer:
if the Jews support the Arab movement, the Arabs will support Zionist immigration.
In great excitement, the Zionist representative rushed to the then leader of the Zionist world
movement, Max Nordau, a German Jew, and urged him to accept the offer. But Nordau treated the offer
with contempt. After all, it was the Turks who were in possession of the country. What did the Arabs
have to offer?
It is difficult to know how history would have evolved if such a Zionist-Arab cooperation had
come into being. But a European Jew could not even imagine such a turn of events. Therefore the Zionists
cooperated with the Turkish – and later with the British – colonial regime against the local Arab
population.
Since then, the conflict between the two peoples has intensified from generation to generation.
Now peace is further away than ever.
But what is peace?
The past cannot be obliterated. Anyone who suggests that the past should be ignored and that we
"start again from the beginning" is dreaming.
Each of the two peoples lives in a past of its own. The past shapes their character and their
behavior every day and every hour. But the past of one side is totally different from the past of
the other.
This is not just a war between two peoples. It is also a war between two histories. Two histories
which contradict each other in almost every particular, though they concern the very same events.
For example: Every Zionist knows that until the 1948 war, the Jews acquired land with good money,
money contributed by Jews around the world. Every Arab knows that the Zionists bought the land from
absentee landlords who lived in Haifa, Beirut or Monte Carlo, and then demanded that the Turkish
(and later the British) police evict the fellahin who had tilled the land for many generations. (All
the land had originally belonged to the Sultan, but when the empire was bankrupt the Sultan sold
it to Arab speculators.)
Another example: Every Jew is proud of the Kibbutzim, a unique achievement of human progress and
social justice, which were frequently attacked by their Arab neighbors. For the Arabs, the Kibbutzim
were just sectarian instruments of displacement and deportation.
Another example: Every Jew knows that the Arabs started the 1948 war in order to exterminate the
Jewish community. Every Arab knows that in that war, the Jews evicted half the Palestinian people
from their homeland.
And so forth: nowadays the Israelis believe that the Palestinian Authority, which pays a monthly
salary to the families of "murderers", supports terrorism. The Palestinians believe that the Authority
is duty-bound to support the families whose sons and daughters have sacrificed their lives for their
people.
And so forth, without end.
(By the way, I am very proud of having invented the only scientifically sound definition of "terrorist",
which both sides can accept: "Freedom fighters are on my side, terrorists are on the other side.")
There will never be peace if the two peoples do not know the historical narrative of the other
side. There is no need to accept the narrative of the opponent. One can deny it totally. But one
has to know it, in order to understand the other people and respect it.
Peace does not have to be based on mutual love. But it must be based on mutual respect. Mutual
respect can arise only when each people knows the historical narrative of the other side. When it
understands that, it will also understand why the other people acts the way it does, and what is
needed for peaceful co-existence.
That would be much easier if every Israeli Jew learned Arabic, and every Palestinian Arab learned
Hebrew. That would not solve the problem, of course, but it would bring the solution much closer.
When each of the two peoples understands that the other side is not a bloodthirsty monster, but
acts from natural motives, it will discover many positive points in the culture of the other side.
Personal contacts will be established, perhaps even friendships.
This is already happening in Israel, though on a small scale. In the academic world, for example.
And in the hospitals. Jewish patients are often surprised to discover that their nice and competent
doctor is an Arab and that Arab male nurses are frequently more gentle than the Jewish ones.
That cannot replace dealing with the real problems. Our two peoples are divided by real, weighty
controversies. There is a problem about land, about borders, about refugees. There are problems of
security and innumerable other issues. A war of more than a hundred years will not end without painful
compromises.
When there is a basis for negotiations between equals, a basis of mutual respect, insoluble problems
will suddenly become soluble problems.
But the precondition for this process is the return of the four-letter-word to the language.
It is impossible to do something big, something historic, if there is no belief that it is possible.
A person will not plug an electric cord into a wall if they do not believe that they will be connected
to electricity. They must believe that the lights will go on.
Nobody will start peace negotiations if they believe that peace is impossible.
The belief in peace will not make peace certain. But at least it will make peace possible.
Uri Avnery is a peace activist, journalist, writer, and former member of the Israeli Knesset.
Read other articles
by Uri , or visit Uri's
website .
Ukraine is now debt slave. Debt slave is not an independent country. No way. It is a
neo-colony.
Notable quotes:
"... The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing short of mind-boggling and unprecedented. ..."
Why Ukrainians of course, it's their country after all.
" it's their country after all."
Their country?
Ukraine had ceased to exist as an independent country in 2014, with arrival
of Nuland (ziocon) and Brennan (the CIA). Hence the spectacular appointments of
Misha Saakishvilli (wanted in his native Georgia), Natali Yaresko (an American
felon), Pravyj sector (local neo-nazi), and finally, Groysman, a Jewish
entrepreneur and current prime minister of Ukraine. Jews make 0.4% of Ukrainian
population:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-the-world
"While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi,
the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington - the CIA, the National Endowment
for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs
- was on the ground in Kiev assisting the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's
constitutionally elected President and Russian ally.
From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably
followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia and its leader.
So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a better outcome -
especially after Russia moved to protect its legitimate interests in its own
backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine. That
included protecting its 200-year old naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea."
Moreover, the Ukrainian territory is the result of Soviet annexations of
Rumanian, Polish, and Hungarian territories; without the generous provisions by
the USSR, Ukraine would be a puny patch of land:
http://ukrmap.su/en-uh10/273.html
Get it, boys and girls? Everyone owes it to Ukraine to "put her on her feet".
Russia owes her gas transit, buying everything Ukraine (less and less)
produces. And, of course, Ukraine's main idea about Europe, as even her former
President still thinks so, is to get to EU, get a truck load of free money (aka
investments) and start living as European upper middle class. I am not
exaggerating. Of course, the fact that Ukraine became what it became by 1990
was largely thanks to the Soviet economic system somehow got lost on such
people as Kuchma, not to speak of very many average Ukrainians.
The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine
achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing
short of mind-boggling and unprecedented.
"... Put another way, historical perspectives conceived in what Becker termed "the specious present" have a sell-by date. Beyond their time, they become stale and outmoded, and so should be revised or discarded. This process of rejecting truths previously treated as authoritative is inexorable and essential. ..."
"... Memories, whether directly or vicariously acquired, are "necessary to orient us in our little world of endeavor." Yet the specious present that we inhabit is inherently unstable and constantly in flux, which means that history itself must be pliable. Crafting history necessarily becomes an exercise in "imaginative creation" in which all participate. However unconsciously, Everyman adapts the past to serve his most pressing needs, thereby functioning as "his own historian." ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... This idée fixe ..."
"... my sense is that many Americans have an inkling that history of late has played them for suckers. This is notably true with respect to the post-Cold War era, in which the glories of openness, diversity, and neoliberal economics, of advanced technology and unparalleled U.S. military power all promised in combination to produce something like a new utopia in which Americans would indisputably enjoy a privileged status globally. ..."
"... "Of course money-lovers will want the United States Government, because it's the one government that exists simply and solely to protect money. " ..."
"... Nah, they'll put a few more bricks in the wall, reinforce the gates, and hire more guards so they can rest well at night while bathed in the glow that they continue to advance the best interests of human-kind over the objections of the unwashed masses on the other side of the wall. ..."
"For all practical purposes history is,
for us and for the time being, what we know it to be." So
remarked
Carl Becker in 1931 at the annual meeting of the American
Historical Association. Professor Becker, a towering figure among historians
of his day, was president of the AHA that year. His message to his
colleagues amounted to a warning of sorts: Don't think you're so smart. The
study of the past may reveal truths, he allowed, but those truths are
contingent, incomplete, and valid only "for the time being."
Put another way, historical perspectives
conceived in what Becker termed "the specious present" have a sell-by date.
Beyond their time, they become stale and outmoded, and so should be revised
or discarded. This process of rejecting truths previously treated as
authoritative is inexorable and essential. Yet it also tends to be fiercely
contentious. The present may be specious, but it confers real privileges,
which a particular reading of the past can sustain or undermine. Becker
believed it inevitable that "our now valid versions" of history "will in due
course be relegated to the category of discarded myths." It was no less
inevitable that beneficiaries of the prevailing version of truth should
fight to preserve it.
Who exercises the authority to relegate?
Who gets to decide when a historical truth no longer qualifies as true?
Here, Becker insisted that "Mr. Everyman" plays a crucial role. For Becker,
Mr. Everyman was Joe Doakes, John Q. Public, or the man in the street. He
was "every normal person," a phrase broad enough to include all manner of
people. Yet nothing in Becker's presentation suggested that he had the
slightest interest in race, sexuality, or gender. His Mr. Everyman belonged
to the tribe of WHAM.
Memories, whether directly or vicariously
acquired, are "necessary to orient us in our little world of endeavor." Yet
the specious present that we inhabit is inherently unstable and constantly
in flux, which means that history itself must be pliable. Crafting history
necessarily becomes an exercise in "imaginative creation" in which all
participate. However unconsciously, Everyman adapts the past to serve his
most pressing needs, thereby functioning as "his own historian."
Yet he does so in collaboration with
others. Since time immemorial, purveyors of the past - the "ancient and
honorable company of wise men of the tribe, of bards and story-tellers and
minstrels, of soothsayers and priests, to whom in successive ages has been
entrusted the keeping of the useful myths" - have enabled him to "hold in
memory those things only which can be related with some reasonable degree
of relevance" to his own experience and aspirations. In Becker's lifetime it
had become incumbent upon members of the professoriate, successors to the
bards and minstrels of yesteryear, "to enlarge and enrich the specious
present common to us all to the end that 'society' (the tribe, the nation,
or all mankind) may judge of what it is doing in the light of what it has
done and what it hopes to do."
Yet Becker took pains to emphasize that
professional historians disdained Mr. Everyman at their peril:
"Berate him as we will for not reading our
books, Mr. Everyman is stronger than we are, and sooner or later we must
adapt our knowledge to his necessities. Otherwise he will leave us to our
own devices The history that does work in the world, the history that
influences the course of history, is living history It is for this reason
that the history of history is a record of the 'new history' that in every
age rises to confound and supplant the old."
Becker stressed that the process of
formulating new history to supplant the old is organic rather than
contrived; it comes from the bottom up, not the top down. "We, historians by
profession, share in this necessary effort," he concluded. "But we do not
impose our version of the human story on Mr. Everyman; in the end it is
rather Mr. Everyman who imposes his version on us."
Donald Trump as Everyman's
Champion?
Becker offered his reflections on
"Everyman His Own Historian" in the midst of the Great Depression. Perhaps
because that economic crisis found so many Americans burdened with
deprivation and uncertainty, he implicitly attributed to his everyman a
unitary perspective, as if shared distress imbued members of the public with
a common outlook. That was not, in fact, the case in 1931 and is, if
anything, even less so in our own day.
Still, Becker's construct retains
considerable utility. Today finds more than a few White Heterosexual
American males (WHAM), our own equivalent of Mr. Everyman, in a state of high
dudgeon. From their perspective, the specious present has not panned out as
it was supposed to. As a consequence, they are pissed. In November 2016, to
make clear just how pissed they were, they elected Donald Trump as president
of the United States.
This was, to put it mildly, not supposed
to happen. For months prior to the election, the custodians of the past in
its "now valid version" had judged the prospect all but inconceivable. Yet
WHAMs (with shocking support from other tribes) intervened to decide
otherwise. Rarely has a single event so thoroughly confounded history's
self-assigned proctors. One can imagine the shade of Professor Becker
whispering, "I warned you, didn't I?"
Those deeply invested in drawing a
straight line from the specious present into the indefinite future blame
Trump himself for having knocked history off its prescribed course. Remove
Trump from the scene, they appear to believe, and all will once again be
well. The urgent imperative of doing just that - immediately, now, no later
than this afternoon - has produced what
New York Times
columnist
Charles Blow aptly
calls
a "throbbing anxiety" among those who (like Blow himself) find
"the relentless onslaught of awfulness erupting from this White House"
intolerable. They will not rest until Trump is gone.
This
idée fixe
, reinforced on a
daily basis by ever more preposterous presidential antics, finds the nation
trapped in a sort of bizarre do-loop. The media's obsession with Trump
reinforces his obsession with the media and between them they simply crowd
out all possibility of thoughtful reflection. Their fetish is his and his
theirs. The result is a cycle of mutual contempt that only deepens the
longer it persists.
Both sides agree on one point only: that
history began anew last November 8th, when (take your pick) America either
took leave of its senses or chose greatness. How the United States got to
November 8th qualifies, at best, as an afterthought or curiosity. It's
almost as if the years and decades that had preceded Trump's election had
all disappeared into some vast sinkhole.
... ... ...
...my sense is that
many Americans have an inkling that history of late has played them for
suckers. This is notably true with respect to the post-Cold War era, in
which the glories of openness, diversity, and neoliberal economics, of
advanced technology and unparalleled U.S. military power all promised in
combination to produce something like a new utopia in which Americans would
indisputably enjoy a privileged status globally.
In almost every respect, those
expectations remain painfully unfulfilled. The history that "served for the
time being" and was endlessly reiterated during the presidencies of Bush 41,
Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama no longer serves. It has yielded a mess of
pottage: grotesque inequality, worrisome insecurity, moral confusion, an
epidemic of self-destructive behavior, endless wars, and basic institutions
that work poorly if at all. Nor is it just WHAMs who have suffered the
consequences. The history with which Americans are familiar cannot explain
this outcome.
The Mandate of Heaven, which members of my tribe once took as theirs
by right, has been cruelly withdrawn. History itself has betrayed us.
How did we manage to sleepwalk for two plus centuries with dreams of "the
city on a hill", our "exceptional nation" etc etc and quite freely disparage
others for their war making proclivities without getting wise to it all?
This line from D.H.Lawrence in his graphic novel "Quetzalcoatl" charges
Mexico and other governments with encouraging our nefarious actions.
"Of
course money-lovers will want the United States Government, because it's the
one government that exists simply and solely to protect money. "
Trump only exists because the two political parties have become so corrupt
and arrogant they don't give a damn about working people. In theory, the
Democratic party represents workers, but as profane lefty Jimmy Dore
recently explained, the Dems are worse than Trump:
When that happens, when promises of American greatness restored prove
empty, there will be hell to pay. Joe Doakes, John Q. Public, and the man
in the street will be even more pissed. Should that moment arrive,
historians would do well to listen seriously to what Everyman has to say.
Some thoughts on this would be that American greatness needed 1) a high
level of national unity 2) a lot of discipline and hard work.
There's a tendency to look back to the 1950′s when talking about
"American Greatness", but in reality this was a very unusual time. America
lacked industrial competitors. After WW2, Germany and Japan were in ruins.
China was still an economic basket case and Europe was recovering with the
help of US multi-nationals and US investment.
Rather than start partying, the US needed an awareness of the coming
challenges and needed from the 1950′s to develop a modern industrial base in
new technologies with top class technological skills among its workforce as
a national project. The aim should have been to build a world class
education system at least to match the STEM results of the best Europeans
and N/E Asians.
In the event, the US disappeared into counter cultural Hippiedom and sent
all its industries to Asian for cheaper and more efficient production. A government stuffed with commercial special interests is obviously going
to do what is best for their bottom lines i.e. produce in Asia and sell in
the US – they're not in business to look after the US public. The public are
Consumers and they are Vendors.
Nah, they'll put a few more bricks in the wall, reinforce the gates, and
hire more guards so they can rest well at night while bathed in the glow
that they continue to advance the best interests of human-kind over the
objections of the unwashed masses on the other side of the wall.
"Are we any better off than we were 50 years ago? Absolutely . . . White
dominance is on the decline as the demographic white majority heads for
oblivion over the course of the next 30 years."
Mark Potok in an August 2013 column for the white-hating SPLC.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Mark_Potok#Quotes
Us WHAMs are in the bulls eye of many a group who would like to see us
join the dinosaurs.
There is very strong trans-species-trans phylum evidence
for what is going to happen in response to betrayal-deception .and it ain't
pretty as they say. Harvard biologist Robert Trivers I believe Comrade Unz
mentioned that he was a research assistant for Robert Trivers at
Harvard wrote a book about the biology of betrayal and revenge using a
massive amount of trans-species and trans-phylum evidence-data
So I recommend that you read Robert Triver's book I also recommend that
you read the conversation betwern Noam Chomsky and Robert Trivers ..where
Trivers discusses the overwhelming ethnological evidence for this which you
can very easily google for
Larger point being made by Noam Chomsky these days: White Males are dying
at an historically unprecedented rate .worse than if there was a
plague-epidemic at higher rate than WW2
Donald Trump's MAGA!!! Jobs Program for Working Class Native Born White Teenage Males from
economically distressed Native Born White Working Class Families from the American Heartland=a Tour
of Duty on patrol with a US Army issued M-16 in Afghanistan .Iraq Syria .coming back to their
Mother's as limbless freaks .human sausages .canon fodder for Donald Trump's precious Jew
only Israel .
"War is a Racket" ..as USMC General and two time Congressional Medal
winner .Smedley Butler wrote over 75 years ago
I'm a big fan of the late Dick Winters and 101 Airborne Easy Company Band of
Brothers WW2. But I just found out recently that Easy Company members Ronald
Spiers and Robert "Burr" Smith were at a high level actively involved in the
destruction of Laos which was bombed back to the Stone Age by the USAF
Interestingly Robert "Burr" Smith trained the US Army Delta Force Team that
died in the Iranianian desert in 1980 .Smith avoided dying in that desert
crash when the CIA yanked him out of this doomed mission at the last minute
out of fear that if Smith a CIA Operative .was captured .risk of spilling
the beans to the Iranians about what the CIA was up to Robert "Burr" Smith was the embodiment of "Invade the World-Invite the
World with his role in the destruction of Laotian Society and his adopted
Laotian teenage "son" .
"We only want to be life as easy as it was under Eisenhower (to be fair,
from Truman to LBJ)."
Nostalgia has a funny way of warping our sense of
reality. Life for some people was "easy" in the 1950′s, but for a number of
people, it was cold, hard, and dark.
Another of the usual enemies of free
speech & Israeli citizen, Potok, supports strict Israeli immigration laws
which specify JEWS ONLY, while he demands massive 3rd world immigration into
the US & Europe.
Interesting post, I've read it through twice, but it has complicated issues.
WHAMs
Wherever corporate CEOs,] . etc.etc.etc.--, [politicians, and generals
congregate to pat each other on the back, you can count on WHAMs
-reciting bromides about the importance of diversity!
Important detail:
some of my brethren - let's call them one percenters -
YEah, SOME "brethren"! THat tiny fraction of a %point, that lives large!
Some Brethren to the name WHAMs! they are.
Sociopaths
who some kind of way masquerade as W H A M. And
what
they do is done in the name of the W H A M
, which is my sticking point.
That small fraction of a %point does all the
bad
, and shifts the
blame ( from the World!!) on to the real WHAMs, what's left of 'em, ( what's
left of the White Hetero part
of 'em, ) who aren't polluted from the social scientist/ ongoing war to turn
WHAMs into WIAMPs! (White Inverted American Male/Tranny Punks.)!! That the
world will hate, and eventually probably be encouraged to completely get rid
of, while the fraction of the %point rides off into the sunset! Then you can
see the real perverts in action!
What happens if you get rid of
Trump? The people who voted for him will most likely replace him with
someone very similar in almost every way, but more competent. Probably a
professional politician version of him. Is that what you want?
Yes, in ancient Greek history Trump is analogous to the Tyrants of Athens,
who were a transition from aristocratic to truly democratic rule. Of course
once democracy was installed the common people of Athens demanded and got
wars against a variety of enemies. Trump rise is an alarming portent. A few
decades from now George W. Bush will be regarded as the last of the cautious
Skull and Bones aristocrats. It is a bit silly to talk of WHAMS, as if the
displacement of white gentiles is less important that open acceptance of
homosexuality. It is WASPs, gay or straight, who have lost.
As was said above, so many words, so little content.
Bacevich has gone off the deep end. Truly.
The idea that white males were sitting around lording it up with their
privilege is absolutely preposterous. No white male ever has done that, and
Bacevich certainly know that. Andrew? Exactly how many times in your long
lifetime have you been slapping backs with other white men laughing about
how great you have it because of your gender and your race?
I'll help you out. It's zero, Andrew. You know it. I know it. We know it.
So this writing is horseshit. Col. Bacevich, you do really great military
anlysis and opinion.
Stop with the virtual signalling fairy tales.
As a white male nothing was ever easy. Yeah, perhaps I did not get my
head beat a few times and avoided some jail. Maybe.
And that makes how much difference in anyone's life?
You really need to get back to the military analysis, bud. You are
sounding like a lunatic with this stuff. But more than that. Dishonest.
I tuned out when he started saying WHAMS misguidedly didn't consider
non-WHAMS in their history, which was completely rational considering before
very recent times there was no reason to.
Interesting but nowhere near your better pieces, too meandering. Although I
only hit the H in the WHAM formulation you have. WHAM doesn't work on two
counts.
i. The pop band, Wham, still well-known due to pop music being in
stasis, and they had one great single and a few others that tasteless people
like.
ii. H also stands for homosexual. It is funny how that word is not
goodspeak in English of now, and heterosexual almost has a pejorative
quality but is widely used. The sickness of western culture. The equivalent
in Japanese of homosexual is used to refer to people who are, well,
homosexual. The equivalent of heterosexual is just about never heard. That
is not discrimination, simply that it is naturally, as it should be, seen as
the norm.
@restless94110
The traditional role of the white male is to support a family by bringing
home the bacon; be courageous when things get rough and defend your family
and friends with your blood; fix everything that's broken; build everything
you need with your hands, or build the machines necessary to build
everything; run everything with competence and man up and take the blame if
you screw up; teach your children how to deal with life; teach people right
from wrong and set the example for them to follow; create high-level
science, medicine, art, physics, math, engineering, etc.
It's a very tall
order, and anyone who thinks it's easy, is a fool.
What about the likes of my aunt who was the
second wife of a childless mega millionaire who died when she was 38 leaving
her to enjoy 50 healthy years as a rich woman until she suddenly died in her
sleep?
The first paragraph was enough social justice warrior crap to make it
unnecessary reading the rest. Yet, I did try for another five paragraphs and
it's just more of the same tripe.
Yeah, all of us stand in line and get free hand-outs. White people at the
front of the line. Nobody works for what they have. Everyone has the same
IQ, the same work ethic, the same adherence to law. I'm upset because the
color of my skin is supposed to dictate my place in the line for free
hand-outs and I am no longer at the front of the line. God what arrogant,
malicious crap.
We just went through IQ scores by country in homeschool today. My kids
are muti-racial, SE Asians, who occupy the top five spots worldwide. They
have the highest average income in this country, the highest academic
performance, and the lowest crime rates.
Of course, we sat around talking about their "privilege" as SE Asians and
how everything is handed to them for free. How they just go up to any line
and cut in front. Right? No.
What I just did was show them your article as a perfect example of why we
don't go to government school.
We are not your "peeps" for the white blood in us and you are not some
hero of ours for having the arrogance to speak for our non-white blood
either.
You are disgusting and worthy of nothing but contempt. I'm majority
white, not pure blood (Seneca Indian) but don't buy into the cult of
victimology where I am supposed to get job preferences, school preferences,
etc. because I am quantum blood Indian. That doesn't make me an "Indian". I
am an American. Our kids are Americans.
The idea that we should knock off "whitey" because we're mixed blood,
like it's "our" turn now – how nonsensical and revolting.
@Backwoods Bob
You are obviously a slow reader but apparently handicapped in dealing with
numbers too. If you had actually read "another five paragraphs" you would
have read the author's "All of which is nonsense of course" at the beginning
of his sixth par.
Fortunately I didn't waste time on many of your paragraphs.
@Anon
The traditional role of ANY male is to support a family by bringing home the
bacon, etc.
It's just what males do, anon.
Bacevich's idiotic virtue signaling nonsense that posits that all white
males knew this and knew that. and that we all had secret meetings in the
basement of the church is ridiculous.
I've known whites who had racist views on black people. I've also known
blacks who have racist views on white people.
But even racists never had any thought that they were suddenly privileged
because of their skin color and/or they were smirking about it in secret or
whatever it is that this guy is claiming in his long, long, long, overly
long piece.
In other words, men did those things, anon, white ones, black one, etc.
This white privilege stuff is just bullshit. It has to go. Andrew B., let
it die it's own irrelevant death.
@Stogumber
Yes if you want life as it was in the 1950′s, then you need to recognize
that we got out of the Great Depression because we started to pay farmers
their fair share. Today they only get 35% of the Parity Dollar, the dollar
that provided for the prosperity across the nation, because it was not
stolen from the producer of that which keeps us alive, literally, and
literally kept the economy afloat, because it was based upon real wealth
properly monetized, meaning not stolen as is the system today .but we lost
that when we stopped Parity, which created earned income at sufficient
levels to not have to borrow as we are now addicted .. as the "interests
whose interest is interest" intend.
Here is a letter to Trump with an
important chart.
@Sam J. "...In the end, it is the American people who decide whether Israel is to be or not
to be a vital American ally and friend..."
To make informed decisions you have to have information. The American people don't have that.
So they really haven't made a decision at all. They've been tricked into doing things that are
covered up in lies. The American people are responsible even if they are being manipulated by
the MSM.
Too many Americans are woefully ignorant about the world, particularly about the extent that
Jewish interests have manipulated so many aspects of our government and our culture. If you even
bring this issue up you are immediately branded a hater and your arguments dismissed.
In short, many Americans are happy to drink the kool aid.
It is a much deeper problem than simply our American Pravda.
Many of us have chosen to be blind, refusing to even consider the possibility that we are being
manipulated, and in the process fail as responsible citizens.
One can choose to be red pilled today. This is ultimately the choice to go through life with
an open mind and to have a high regard for reality, however uncomfortable that reality may be.
@Sam J. "...The source of Jewish power in the US is their brokerage of voter bias and federal
entitlements between the federal government and the public..."
There may be a little bit of that but it's not the main reason. The main reasons are:
1. They own practically all media in the US.
2. They own the FED providing almost limitless cash to their preferred people.
3. They're blackmailing huge numbers of our Representatives with little Boys and little Girls.
4. They'll kill you if they don't get their way.
So if you run against them in the primary you will have extremely well funded opponents and the
press will savage you. If that doesn't work they will try to redistrict you out of a job. If that
doesn't work they will frame or kill you like they did to Ohio Congressman James Traficant. "1.
They own practically all media in the US.
2. They own the FED providing almost limitless cash to their preferred people.
3. They're blackmailing huge numbers of our Representatives with little Boys and little Girls.
4. They'll kill you if they don't get their way."
And this has been leading the States – and Israel along with the States – to the demise. The
US governing institutions have lost their ability to respond to reality and instead they respond
to personal desires only. Hence the approaching danger of a hot war.
Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and
website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television.
If so, you'll need to issue a retraction of your statement and all the other insinuations you
derived from it. If it is not the video, I issue my apologies in advance.
......he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly as Kennedy was
replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson.
With this slander which others commented on earlier, it does deserve repeating emphatically,
you've submerged yourself in conspiracies for reasons which appear to be occult Jew hatred
impossible to contain just under the surface. It beggars belief that statement was written
tongue in cheek; excessive cheek, tongue impossible to pry unstuck. An attempt at humour? Poor
taste, really.
The Israelis know what is going on all the time.
Pure nonsense at some level. At another level, it is well-known we know more about our allies
than their respective governments do and vice versa.
......but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves
as progressive, including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris,
So they are progressives, what of it? You fail to understand most Americans view Iranians as
a nation of people which took hostage American diplomats. These congressmen are doing no more
than what their constituents want.
The readership of UR, a collection of a few excellent thinkers, overwhelmed by a larger
group of lunatics, do not reflect the sentiment of the vast majority. They could not care what
you or I think of Iranians. They remember Nov 1979.
And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was passed
unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14th.
Antisemitism is a serious matter and it is well for it to bear scrutiny in some cases where
through their actions overzealous elements[some in the judiciary] trivialise its intent. But
you seem to favour an environment where mere vigilance through a bill deserves defeat. Unanimously.
President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous of starting serious
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu
took him aside and came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians "inciting"
violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it
It's comical to behold the "select" group which voted for Trump now complain on these pages
of the UR about what the man said he was going to do from the very beginning on the Israel-Palestine
issue. It is not a sham. Trump never believed the "bullshit" coming from the U.N. [a body which
has over 40 Muslim and Arab members] on the contrary, attacking the solitary Jewish nation
state. He required no "taking aside" by Bibi. One needn't travel to the West Bank to find Jew
hatred; a few months' worth of reading your columns being quite sufficient.
I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50th
anniversary of the bravery exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they
were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem was being "liberated"
Such a Senate resolution requires convincing senators of its necessity. No one is stopping
anyone.
I understand you feel Jerusalem is better in the hands of Palestinians and Arabs. We disagree.
A gem of an article all things considered.
"You fail to understand most Americans view Iranians as a nation of people which took hostage
American diplomats."
Disgusted "liberal". Am I even a "liberal" anymore? I loathe the I-word and the
J-word now with a purple passion. If I see an article from Wapo or NYT or any
of the other "msm", I don't read it. I stopped watching ANY tv, and exclusively
read those who didn't lie about Iraq 2003. What the hell AM I? I despise
Republicans, but the Dems didn't oppose their wars. Now I despise the Dems, and
the right-wingnuts are starting to make sense. Is this cognitive dissonance?
Bizzaro-world? I am one CONFUSED puppy.
Thank you PG
Thoughtful comment.
The Democrats are every bit as much on board with the
wars and the destruction of the working class as are the Republicans.
Where are the respectable liberals in this country?
I despise Democrats as you despise Republicans.
Now I despise them both. I have little loyalty for my government and do not
trust anything that they do.
"... At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue
of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than
Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to
the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with "Israel had far
more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?" ..."
"... Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again
that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. ..."
At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue
of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more
than Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned
to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by
challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?"
Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again
that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. Stone was, of course, referring to the fact that the Israel Lobby,
most notably acting through its American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is undeniably a foreign lobby, no less so than
anyone representing the presumed interests of Russia or China. It operates with complete impunity on Capitol Hill and also at state
and local levels and no one dares to require it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would permit
scrutiny of its finances and also end its tax-exempt "educational" status. Nor does Congress or the media see fit to inquire into
AIPAC's empowerment of candidates based on their fidelity to Israel, not to mention the direct interference in the American electoral
process which surfaced most visibly in its support of candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.
The last president that sought to compel the predecessor organization of AIPAC to register was John F. Kennedy, who also was about
to take steps to rein in Israel's secret nuclear weapons program when he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly
as Kennedy was replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson. Funny how things sometimes work out. The Warren Commission
looked deeply into a possible Cuban connection in the shooting and came up with nothing but one has to wonder if they also investigated
the possible roles of other countries. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission Report failed to examine the possible involvement of Israel
in the terrorist attack in spite of a considerable body of evidence suggesting that there were a number of Israeli-sourced covert
operations running in the U.S. at that time.
Looking back from the perspective of his more than 40 years of military service, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Admiral Thomas Moorer described the consequences of Jewish
power vis-à-vis U.S. policy towards Israel, stating that "I've never seen a president – I don't care who he is – stand up to them
[the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got
to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government,
they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on."
He also addressed the 1967 Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, saying "Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators
from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels. [And that] Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats
at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded." He concluded with "our government put Israel's interests
ahead of our own? If so, Why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests?"
It is a question that might well be asked today, as the subservience to Israeli interests is, if anything, more pervasive in 2017
Washington than it was in 2002 when Moorer spoke up. And, as in Moorer's day, much of the partiality towards Israel makes its way
through congress with little or no media coverage lest anyone begin to wonder whose tail is wagging which dog. To put it succinctly,
there is an Israeli hand in much of what the United States does internationally, and the involvement is not intended to do anything
good for the American people.
During the past several weeks alone there has been a flurry of legislation backed by Israel and its Lobby.
One bill might actually have
been written by AIPAC. It is called Senate 722, Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. The bill has 63 co-sponsors,
most of whom are the usual suspects, but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves as progressive,
including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris, both of whom are apparently terrified lest they say "no" to Israel. With 63 co-sponsors
out of 100 senators the bill was certain to pass overwhelmingly, and it was indeed approved 98 to 2, with only Rand Paul and Bernie
Sanders voting "no."
And there's more to S.722 than
Iran – it's subtitle is "An act to provide congressional review and to counter Iranian and Russian governments' aggression." Much
of it is designed to increase sanctions on both Iran and Russia while also limiting the White House's ability to relieve any sanctions
without approval by congress. Regarding Iran, the bill mandates that "Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the
Director of National Intelligence shall jointly develop and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a strategy for deterring
conventional and asymmetric Iranian activities and threats that directly threaten the United States and key allies in the Middle
East, North Africa, and beyond."
ORDER IT NOW
The premise is of course nonsensical as Iran's ability to threaten anyone, least of all the United States, is limited. It is far
outgunned by its neighbors and even more so by the U.S., but it has become the enemy of choice for congress as well as for the former
generals who serve as White House advisers. The animus against Iran comes directly from Israel and from the Saudi Arabians, who have
managed to sell their version of developments in their part of the world through a completely acquiescent and heavily Jewish influenced
western media.
And there's more. A bill has surfaced in the House
of Representatives that will require the United States to "consult" with Israel regarding any prospective arms sales to Arab countries
in the Middle East. In other words, Israel will have a say, backed up undoubtedly by Congress and the media, over what the United
States does in terms of its weapons sales abroad. The sponsors of the bill, one Brad Schneider of Illinois, and Claudia Tenney of
New York, want "closer scrutiny of future military arms sales" to maintain the "qualitative military edge" that Israel currently
enjoys.
Schneider is, of course, Jewish and a life member of AIPAC, so it is hardly as if he is a disinterested party. Tenny runs for
office in New York State, so it is hardly as if she is disinterested either, but the net result of all this is that American jobs
and U.S. international security arrangements through weapons sales will be at least in part subject to Israeli veto. And you know
that is precisely what will happen as Israel could give a damn what happens to the struggling American entity that it so successfully
feeds off of.
And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was
passed
unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14 th . Yes, I said "unanimously." The bill requires the State
Department of monitor what European nations and their police forces are doing about anti-Semitism and encourages them to adopt "a
uniform definition of anti-Semitism." That means that criticism of Israel must be considered anti-Semitism and will therefore be
a hate crime and prosecutable, a status that is already de facto true in Britain and France. If the Europeans don't play ball, there
is the possibility of repercussions in trade negotiations. The bill was co-sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Nita
Lowey of New York, both of whom are Jewish.
There is also a
Senate companion bill on offer in the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of 2017. The bill will make the Anti-Semitism
Envoy a full American Ambassador and will empower him or her with a full staff and a budget permitting meddling worldwide. The bill
is sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Marco Rubio of Florida. Gillibrand is unlikely to miss co-sponsoring anything
relating to Israel due to her own self-interest and Rubio wants to be president real bad so he is following the money.
And finally, the U.S. Senate has also approved a resolution
celebrating the 50 th anniversary of Israel's conquest of East Jerusalem. Again, the vote was unanimous. The resolution
was co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer and Mitch McConnell, two reptiles who give snakes a bad name and about whom the less
said the better. Schumer is Jewish and has
described himself
as the "shomer" or guardian of Israel in the Senate. That the resolution opposes long established U.S. government policy that
the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank by Israel is in contravention of international law and is an impediment to any
peace process with the Palestinians apparently bothered not even one Senator.
I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50 th anniversary of the bravery
exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem
was being "liberated." There is probably even more to say, to include secret agreements with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies,
but I will stop at this point with one final observation. President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous
of starting serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu took him aside and
came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians "inciting" violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it.
He then went to see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and
shouted at him for being
a liar and opposed to peace based on what Netanyahu had told him. That is what passes for even-handed in the U.S. government, no
matter who is president. A few days later the Israelis announced the building of the largest bloc of illegal new settlements on the
West Bank since 1992, an action that they claim
is being coordinated with Washington.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once boasted about owning the United States. I guess he was right.
Bacevich is a treasure...he's been inside the belly of the beast, and understands from first hand
knowledge how it produces immense quantities of BS for public consumption and for preserving its
own perks, privileges, and budgets.
He wrote a foreword to reprint of The Irony of American History (Paperback) by Reinhold Niebuhr
which you can read on Amazon for free.
Niebuhr thought deeply about the dilemmas confronting the United States as a consequence
of its emergence after World War I and, even more, after World War II, as a global superpower.
The truths he spoke are uncomfortable ones for us to hear-uncomfortable not only because they
demand a great deal of us as citizens, but also because they outline so starkly some of our
recent failures. Four such truths are especially underlined in The Irony of American History:
the persistent sin of American Exceptionalism; the indecipherability of history; the false
allure of simple solutions; and, finally, the imperative of appreciating the limits of power.
The Anglo-American colonists who settled these shores, writes Niebuhr, saw their purpose
as "to make a new beginning in a corrupt world." They believed "that we had been called out
by God to create a new humanity." They believed further that this covenant with God marked
America as a new Israel.
As a Chosen People with what Niebuhr refers to as a "Messianic consciousness," Americans
came to see them selves as set apart, their motives irreproachable, their actions not to be
judged by standards applied to others.
... ... ...
Niebuhr has little patience for those who portray the United States as acting on God's behalf.
"All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in their political
cause by investing it with religious sanctity," he once observed. "This is why religion is
more frequently a source of confusion than of light in the political realm."
In the United States, he continued, "The tendency to equate our political with our Christian
convictions causes politics to generate idolatry."9
Evangelical conservatism and its growing influence on American politics, which Niebuhr did
not live to see, have only reinforced this tendency.
Niebuhr anticipated that the American veneration of liberty could itself degenerate into
a form of idolatry. In the midst of World War II, he went so far as to describe the worship
of democracy as "a less vicious version of the Nazi creed." He cautioned that "no society,
not even a democratic one, is great enough or good enough to make itself the final end of human
existence."
Although he rarely uses the term "American [neoliberal] empire", and I think never terms "Washington
consensus", "debt slavery", or neoliberalism.
"... Besides, was there ever a time with the Trump Administration's policies in the Middle-East made any logical sense at all? During the election campaign they were, shall we say, 50/50 (excellent on ISIS, plain stupid about Iran). But ever since the January coup against Flynn and Trump's surrender to the Neocons all we have seen in one form of delusional stupidity after another. ..."
"... I see this latest crisis as yet another desperate attempt by the Three Rogue States to prove that they are still the biggest and baddest guys on the block and, just like the previous ones, I think that it will fail. For example, I just don't see the Qataris shutting down al-Jazeera, one of their most powerful "weapons". ..."
"... The Three Rogue States have the same problem: their military capability to threaten, bully or punish is rapidly eroding and fewer and fewer countries out there fear them. ..."
"... I will end this column by comparing what Presidents Putin and Trump are doing these days as I find this comparison highly symbolic of the new era we are living in: Trump, after bombing a few "technicals" (4×4 trucks with a machine gun) and trucks in Syria, the proceeded to tweet that Comey was a liar and a leaker. As for Putin, he participated the latest meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which welcomed both Pakistan and India as full members. The SCO now represents over half of all the people living on our planet and one quarter of the world's GDP . You can think of it as the "other G8", or the "G8 that matters". ..."
"... the semi-official strategy of the Russian Foreign Ministry which is to "turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into friends, friends into allies" ..."
"... The West simply has no diplomacy any more, only the airforce and the bombs. Diplomacy has always been a highly rational means of achieving your own goals, where military should only be its extension tool, not a complete substitute. The Western MIC has made the Western countries forget this. ..."
"... I don't think "because Trump said so" can be regarded as credible evidence of anything. Even his own most die-hard supporters rarely bother pretending his word is worth anything (they just claim when he lies that it's a cunning subterfuge based upon some complex strategerising). ..."
"... the jury is still out on whether Trump actively and consciously "greenlit" the Saudi move to its full extent, or whether he just didn't understand what the implications would be of his toadying to Riyadh. ..."
"... This is still just a political crisis, and given the stakes for both sides it must be most likely that it will remain such, and a resolution will ultimately be found that involves the Qataris conceding enough for the Saudis to claim victory. ..."
"... But given that neither side can afford to be seen to lose completely, it only needs one side to be a bit too obdurate or a bit too greedy, and the crisis could move beyond the merely political. In that case we would see perhaps an attempted coup or uprising in Qatar, an occupation by the Saudis with US complicity, or perhaps Turkish or even Iranian troops guaranteeing Qatar against those events, which would mean genuinely significant shifts in Qatar's strategic position. ..."
"... if Turkey formally "guarantees Qatar's independence" I'm going to start getting WW1 flashbacks, and seeing the ME as the new Balkans ..."
"... The analogy is perhaps tenuous, but this affair reminds me slightly of Austria-Hungary's demands on Serbia in 1914. Didn't that end well? ..."
"... How significant is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? Just joining an organisation doesn't reveal its impact. Pakistan and India will never get along. I acknowledge Russia has good leadership. Though, what happens when Putin retires? China is strong, but much rests on the future leadership of China. ..."
"... You are ever so wrong to call these God-fearing states "Rogue States"! Please, call them The Axis of Kindness. They specialize in dropping beautiful, democratic, humanitarian bombs. ..."
"... In perhaps 2015, when Lavrov was constantly in the Middle East, I remember a report, perhaps in Russian on a meeting in Qatar with Khalid bin Mohammad al-Attiyah. Lavrov had promised Qatar a pipeline to be built through Syria in exchange for a $10 Bn investment in the RDIF, which has indeed happened. (Although, so has a similar KSA deal). At this time, presumably, success in Syria and investment mattered more than Gazprom's commercial interest. It could be that Qatar has cut off support for Syrian ISIS and Hamas. ISIS seems to be fading fast. The pipeline was to be Qatar's not the Iran-Russia-Turkey scheme to which Qatar has also been invited. ..."
"... There have been other discussions about a Qatar, Iranian pipeline operated by Russia which makes more sense for Russia but is less of a bribe. Qatar Investment Authority funded Glencore to buy 19.5% of Rosneft this year. Sechin is pushing Putin to allow Rosneft to build and operate gas pipelines so Russia takes a stake in the Qatari pipeline through Rosneft rather than Gazprom? ..."
"... In a nutshell, the situation of Qatar appears to be a symptom of the struggle between the political Islam and the hereditary/religious Islam, in which Qatar plays a part of the more progressive, and potentially more dangerous in the long run, political Islam . ..."
"... Therefore, the Muslim lands of ME have added yet another schism to an already rich list, to the delight of Israel. Finally, it is simply sad how uninformed and bumbling the American version of Lawrence of Arabia, the saber dancer Donald Trump, is in all this, completely out of his depth. ..."
"... Trump's attack on Syria was either a blunder, or just political show. The last possibility to me seems the most probable. Making Iran the threat to the ME might be meant to give Saudi Arabia the leading position in the ME, just as abandoning NATO by the USA may be meant to deliver the USA from the burden, imagined, to defend Europe against Russia. I still wonder if Trump is far more cunning than his enemies think he is. ..."
"... As Russia had no intention of giving up Sebastopol, the USA will not give up Qatar. There is no business like show business. ..."
"... The Israelis and Saudis have been in a defacto anti-Shiite alliance for years against Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. I keep waiting for evidence of discontent among the Muslim masses over this the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques allied with Israel against other Muslim countries that now includes Qatar. ..."
"... But no evidence of discontent. Perhaps this is due to the Wahhabi fundamentalists concluding that Muslim apostates like the Shiites are worse than Jews and Crusaders. Déjà vu the deadly European Thirty Years' War (1618 to 1648) between Catholics and Protestants all over again. ..."
"... The article is correct when stating Iran is the target. ..."
"... Anyway, the Saud family will last as long as the petrodollar enables them to bribe their own people (and having young, male, single, radicalized potential troublemakers-of whom the numbers are increasing-make trouble outside the borders rather than within the Kingdom) and CENTCOM allows them to keep the Shi'a in the Eastern Provinces in check. Once one or both of those factors go away, hell breaks loose in Riyadh. Unfortunately, contrary to what many Western liberals say, what will likely to replace the Saud family in the event of a revolution is probably going to be far worse than what exists today, if public opinion polls in the Kingdom and zakat donations from private donors in Saudi Arabia to jihadist groups are a barometer. ..."
"... On the Thirty Year's War: very astute analogy, one that I agree with to an extent. However, a big difference is that the Sunni drastically outnumber the Shi'a in a way that the Protestants didn't the Catholics, around 7 to 1. That is what makes Beltway overestimation of Iranian capabilities so ludicrous. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia and Israel spend a *lot* of money to keep the Beltway view of the world akin to what they want. Gulf money permeates our think tanks, both on the Left and the Right: and if Trump had an iota of intelligence last year, he would have hammered home the Clinton Foundation's connection to shady Gulfie donors when she paraded her feminism. ..."
"... I think both the Left and Right give Trump way too much credit. He's neither a Russian controlled, closet white supremacist dictator in the making, nor a new Marius, heroically despised by the Establishment, who actually wants to keep his promises to those who voted him into power. Trump is exactly what he appears to be: the American Berlusconi, a corrupt billionaire mogul who just makes it up as he goes along. No more, no less. ..."
"... The common people of the United States, like the same class of people in every other country, mean well, but they are ill-informed. Floundering about in their ignorance, they are tricked and robbed by those who have the inside information and who therefore know how to take advantage of every turn wheel of fortune. ..."
We will probably never find out what truly was discussed between Trump, the Saudis and the Israelis,
but there is little doubt that the recent Saudi move against Qatar is the direct results of these
negotiations. How do I know that? Because
Trump himself said so -- As I mentioned in a recent column,
Trump's
catastrophic submission to the Neocons and their policies have
left
him stuck with the KSA and Israel , another two rogue states whose power and, frankly, mental
sanity, are dwindling away by the minute.
While the KSA and Qatar have had their differences and problems in the past, this time around
the magnitude of the crisis is much bigger than anything the past. This is a tentative and necessarily
rough outline of who is supporting whom:
United Arab Emirates , Bahrain , Egypt , Maldives , Yemen (they mean the pro-Saudi
regime in exile), Mauritania , Comoros , Libya (Tobruk government), Jordan , Chad , Djibouti
, Senegal , United States , Gabon.
The situation is very fluid and all this might change soon, but do you notice something weird
in the list above? Turkey and Germany are supporting Qatar even though the US is supporting the KSA.
That's two major NATO member states taking a position against the USA.
Next, look at the list supporting the Saudis: except for the USA and Egypt they are all militarily
irrelevant (and the Egyptians won't get militarily involved anyway). Not so for those opposing the
Saudis, especially not Iran and Turkey. So if money is on the side of the Saudis, firepower is on
the side of Qatar here.
Then, Gabon? Senegal? Since when are those two involved in Persian Gulf politics? Why are they
taking sides in this faraway conflict? A quick look at the
10 conditions the Saudis demand that the Qataris fullfil does not help us understand their involvement
either
... ... ...
More interestingly, why is ISRAEL not listed as a country supporting the KSA?
As always, the Israelis themselves are much more honest about their role in all this. Well, maybe
they don't quite say "we done it" but they write articles like "
Five reasons why Israel should care about the Qatar crisis " which lists all the reasons why
the Israelis are delighted:
It hurts Hamas
It brings Israel closer to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf It shows US influence is back
in the region It delegitimizes terrorism It bolsters Israel's hand in general and Israel's government
in particular
That kind of honesty is quite refreshing, even if it is primarily for internal, Israeli, consumption.
Quick check with a Palestinian source – yup, the Israelis are backing the KSA. This is hardly
surprising, no matter how hard the western corporate media tries to not notice this.
What about the USA? Do they really benefit from this crisis?
The USA has what might possibly the largest USAF base worldwide in Qatar, the
Al Udeid Air Base .
Furthermore, the forward headquarters of
United StatesCENTCOM
are also located in Qatar. To say that these are crucial US infrastructures is an understatement
– one could argue that these are the most important US military facilities anywhere in the world
outside the United States. Thus one would logically conclude that the very last thing the US would
want is any type of crisis or even tensions anywhere near such vital facilities yet it quite clear
that the Saudis and the Americans are acting in unison against Qatar. This makes no sense, right?
Correct. But now that the US has embarked on a
futile policy of military escalation in Syria it should come as no surprise that the two main
US allies in the region are doing the same thing.
Besides, was there ever a time with the Trump Administration's policies in the Middle-East
made any logical sense at all? During the election campaign they were, shall we say, 50/50 (excellent
on ISIS, plain stupid about Iran). But ever since the January coup against Flynn and Trump's surrender
to the Neocons all we have seen in one form of delusional stupidity after another.
Objectively, the crisis around Qatar is not good at all for the USA.
... ... ...
What about Russia in all that?
The Russians and the Qataris have butted heads many times over, especially over Syria and Libya
where Qatar played an extremely toxic role in being the prime financiers of various takfiri terrorist
groups. Furthermore, Qatar is Russia's number one competitor in many LNG (liquefied natural gas)
markets. There were also other crises between the two countries, including what appears to be a
Russian
assassination of the Chechen terrorist Leader Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev and the subsequent torture
and trial of two Russian Embassy employees accused of being involved in the assassination (they were
sentenced to life in prison and eventually sent back to Russia). Still, the Russians and the Qataris
are eminently pragmatic peoples and the two countries mostly maintained a cordial, if careful, relationship
which even included some joint economic ventures.
It is highly unlikely that Russia will intervene directly in this crisis unless, of course, Iran
is directly attacked. The good news is that such a direct attack on Iran is unlikely as none of the
Three Rogue States really have any stomach to take on Iran (and Hezbollah). What Russia will do is
use her soft power, political
and
economic , to slowly try to reel Qatar into the Russian orbit according to the semi-official
strategy of the Russian Foreign Ministry which is to " turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into
friends, friends into allies ". Just like with Turkey, the Russians will gladly help, especially
since they know that this help will buy them some very precious influence in the region.
Iran, the real target of it all
The Iranians are now openly saying that
the recent terrorist attack in Tehran was ordered by Saudi Arabia . Technically speaking, that
means that Iran is
now at war . In reality, of course, as the real local superpower, Iran is acting with
calm and restraint : the Iranians fully understand that this latest terrorist attack is a sign
of weakness, if not desperation, and that the best reaction to it is to act the same way the Russians
reacted to the bombings in Saint Petersburg: stay focused, calm and determined. Just like the Russians,
the Iranians have now also offered to send food to Qatar, but it is unlikely that they will intervene
militarily unless the Saudis really go crazy. Besides, with
Turkish forces soon deployed in Qatar , the Iranians have no real need for any displays of military
might. I would argue that the simple fact that neither the USA nor Israel have dared to directly
attack Iran since 1988 (since
shooting down by the
US Navy of the Iran Air Flight 655 Airbus ) is the best proof of the real Iranian military power.
... ... ..
...As for the Qataris, they have already clearly indicated that they are
unwilling to surrender and that
they will fight . The Saudis have already taken the outrageous decision to impose a blockade
of a fellow Muslim country during the holy month of Ramadan. Will they really now further escalate
and commit an act of aggression against a fellow Muslim country during that month? They might, but
it is hard to believe that even they could be that ignorant of the Muslim public opinion. But if
they don't, then their operation will lose a lot of momentum while the Qataris will be given time
to prepare politically, economically, socially and militarily. Qatar might be small, and the Qataris
themselves not very numerous, but their immense pockets allow them to quickly line up any amount
of suppliers and contractors willing to help them out. This is case where the famous "market forces"
will act to Qatar's advantage.
The
Qatari Foreign Minister is expected in Moscow on Saturday and it is pretty obvious what the talks
will be about: while Russia will not put all her political weight to support the Qataris, the Kremlin
might accept becoming a mediator between the KSA and Qatar. If that happens, that would be the ultimate
irony: the main outcome of the Saudi-Israeli-US operation will make Russia an even more influential
player in the region. As for Qatar itself, the outcome of this crisis will probably articulate itself
along Nietzschean lines: " That which does not kill us, makes us stronger ."
Conclusion
I see this latest crisis as yet another desperate attempt by the Three Rogue States to prove
that they are still the biggest and baddest guys on the block and, just like the previous ones, I
think that it will fail. For example, I just don't see the Qataris shutting down al-Jazeera, one
of their most powerful "weapons". Nor do I see them breaking all diplomatic relations with Iran
as those two states are joined at the hip by
the immense South Pars gas condensate field . The immense wealth of the Qataris also means that
they have very powerful supporters worldwide who right now, as I write these lines, are probably
on the phone making calls to very influential people and indicating to them in no unclear terms that
Qatar is not to be messed with.
If anything this crisis will only serve to push Qatar further into the warm embrace of other countries,
including Russia and Iran, and it will further weaken the Saudis.
The Three Rogue States have the same problem: their military capability to threaten, bully
or punish is rapidly eroding and fewer and fewer countries out there fear them. Their biggest
mistake is that instead of trying to adapt their policies to this new reality, they always chose
to double-down over and over again even though they fail each time, making them look even weaker
and their initial predicament even worse. This is a very dangerous downward spiral and yet the Three
Rogue States seem unable to devise any other policy.
I will end this column by comparing what Presidents Putin and Trump are doing these days as
I find this comparison highly symbolic of the new era we are living in: Trump, after bombing a few
"technicals" (4×4 trucks with a machine gun) and trucks in Syria, the proceeded to tweet that Comey
was a liar and a leaker. As for Putin, he participated the latest meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) which welcomed both Pakistan and India as full members. The SCO now represents
over half of all the people living on our planet and one quarter of the world's GDP . You can
think of it as the "other G8", or the "G8 that matters".
I submit that this quick comparison of agenda really says I all.
The real Qatari 'crime' was to refuse, on purely pragmatic reasons, to join into the massive
anti-Iranian campaign imposed on the region by Saudi Arabia and Israel.
This is why it is worth reading this good article. I suspected this to be the reason from the
start of the crisis: Qatar has been an active supporter of ME terrorism (including ISIS) just
like KSA, US, Israel, UAE and Turkey. But they were never as anti-Iranian as the other members
of this Coalition of the Lovers of Terrorism.
Also, I liked this sentence on the diplomatic skill forgotten in the West:
the semi-official strategy of the Russian Foreign Ministry which is to "turn enemies
into neutrals, neutrals into friends, friends into allies"
The West simply has no diplomacy any more, only the airforce and the bombs. Diplomacy has
always been a highly rational means of achieving your own goals, where military should only be
its extension tool, not a complete substitute. The Western MIC has made the Western countries
forget this.
there is little doubt that the recent Saudi move against Qatar is the direct results
of these negotiations. How do I know that? Because Trump himself said so!
I don't think "because Trump said so" can be regarded as credible evidence of anything.
Even his own most die-hard supporters rarely bother pretending his word is worth anything (they
just claim when he lies that it's a cunning subterfuge based upon some complex strategerising).
As far as I can see the jury is still out on whether Trump actively and consciously "greenlit"
the Saudi move to its full extent, or whether he just didn't understand what the implications
would be of his toadying to Riyadh. Perhaps he really is so profoundly ignorant that he really
believes what his words imply: that the Qataris sponsor terrorism (they do) but the Saudis (and
his own regime) don't, remarkable as that would be in a national leader.
As for the Qataris, they have already clearly indicated that they are unwilling to surrender
and that they will fight.
This is still just a political crisis, and given the stakes for both sides it must be most
likely that it will remain such, and a resolution will ultimately be found that involves the Qataris
conceding enough for the Saudis to claim victory.
But given that neither side can afford to be seen to lose completely, it only needs one
side to be a bit too obdurate or a bit too greedy, and the crisis could move beyond the merely
political. In that case we would see perhaps an attempted coup or uprising in Qatar, an occupation
by the Saudis with US complicity, or perhaps Turkish or even Iranian troops guaranteeing Qatar
against those events, which would mean genuinely significant shifts in Qatar's strategic position.
The odds are against that, because all parties have too much at stake to lightly go far down those
roads, but such crises can spiral out of control. And on the way we could see all kinds of destructive
economic warfare, lawfare, and hardball pressurising, together with lots of hanging out of each
side's dirty laundry by the other.
Popcorn time. But if Turkey formally "guarantees Qatar's independence" I'm going to start
getting WW1 flashbacks, and seeing the ME as the new Balkans
UPDATE1: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is now telling the Saudis to 'cool it'. The
Saudi-Israeli plan is beginning to collapse.
How significant is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? Just joining an organisation
doesn't reveal its impact. Pakistan and India will never get along. I acknowledge Russia has good
leadership. Though, what happens when Putin retires? China is strong, but much rests on the future
leadership of China.
The US isn't exactly in competition with China, because the US doesn't want to grow stronger.
The US wants to help Israel expand. And the US wants to help enrich defence contractors and expand
pork spending. So, the US and China have two very different goals. Also, the US and Europe are
dedicated to undermining their European populations.
So, while China and Russia pursue power, the US has very different objectives.
You are ever so wrong to call these God-fearing states "Rogue States"! Please, call them
The Axis of Kindness. They specialize in dropping beautiful, democratic, humanitarian bombs.
@Weaver
"The US isn't exactly in competition with China, because the US doesn't want to grow stronger.
The US wants to help Israel expand. And the US wants to help enrich defence contractors and expand
pork spending."
ROFL!!!! Great writing. Funny, but so much truth there
In perhaps 2015, when Lavrov was constantly in the Middle East, I remember a report, perhaps
in Russian on a meeting in Qatar with Khalid bin Mohammad al-Attiyah. Lavrov had promised Qatar
a pipeline to be built through Syria in exchange for a $10 Bn investment in the RDIF, which has
indeed happened. (Although, so has a similar KSA deal). At this time, presumably, success in Syria
and investment mattered more than Gazprom's commercial interest. It could be that Qatar has cut
off support for Syrian ISIS and Hamas. ISIS seems to be fading fast. The pipeline was to be Qatar's
not the Iran-Russia-Turkey scheme to which Qatar has also been invited.
I was monitoring so much Russian media at the time (hundreds of stories a day and this was
not relevant to my task) I can't place it exactly but it was very memorable because of the reversals
involved and the mass of implications. How did they reconcile interests. There have been other
discussions about a Qatar, Iranian pipeline operated by Russia which makes more sense for Russia
but is less of a bribe. Qatar Investment Authority funded Glencore to buy 19.5% of Rosneft this
year. Sechin is pushing Putin to allow Rosneft to build and operate gas pipelines so Russia takes
a stake in the Qatari pipeline through Rosneft rather than Gazprom?
It is very interesting that even Al ash-Shaikh has denounced Qatar because of its insubordination
to Saudi commands and interests.
In a nutshell, the situation of Qatar appears to be a symptom of the struggle between the
political Islam and the hereditary/religious Islam, in which Qatar plays a part of the more progressive,
and potentially more dangerous in the long run, political Islam .
Therefore, the Muslim lands of ME have added yet another schism to an already rich list,
to the delight of Israel. Finally, it is simply sad how uninformed and bumbling the American version
of Lawrence of Arabia, the saber dancer Donald Trump, is in all this, completely out of his depth.
Trump's attack on Syria was either a blunder, or just political show. The last possibility
to me seems the most probable. Making Iran the threat to the ME might be meant to give Saudi
Arabia the leading position in the ME, just as abandoning NATO by the USA may be meant to deliver
the USA from the burden, imagined, to defend Europe against Russia. I still wonder if Trump is
far more cunning than his enemies think he is.
@anon
Let's look at the numbers again from an angle that makes more sense:
Israeli expansion (relative to its size): 2500/8522 = 29%
Indonesian expansion (relative to size): 130,000/735,358 = 18%
Moroccan expansion (relative to size – keeping in mind it only occupies 2/3 of Western Sahara):
68,660/274,460 = 25%
Russian expansion (relative to size): 14,000/6,592,800 = <1%
"The SCO now represents over half of all the people living on our planet and one quarter
of the world's GDP. You can think of it as the "other G8", or the "G8 that matters"."
Very clever! Unfortunately the other G8 will only matter around 2040 or so, when the last of
the West as we know it is finally subsumed into the Great Caliphate, at which point it will then
turn on the other half of the planet.
Nothing new. The Israelis and Saudis have been in a defacto anti-Shiite alliance for years
against Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. I keep waiting for evidence of discontent among the Muslim
masses over this the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques allied with Israel against other Muslim
countries that now includes Qatar.
But no evidence of discontent. Perhaps this is due to the Wahhabi fundamentalists concluding
that Muslim apostates like the Shiites are worse than Jews and Crusaders. Déjà vu the deadly
European Thirty Years' War (1618 to 1648) between Catholics and Protestants all over again.
@Philip
Owen Thanks for that .2015.a lot has happened including the opening up of gas reserves on
the Mediterranean. both turkey and Qatar have us airbases so that is leverage. regardless it Is
one thing building a pipeline and another keeping it secure. Qatar has been trying to build up
leverage on Israel via the Palestinians but that has come to and end with trumps push for peace.
ideally peace does not suit qatars plans so gaza could explode soon. hence qatars flirtation with
iran hoping to stir up trouble in s.lebanon via hezb. Al thani ran from Syria. maybe they
can send him to s.lebanon for some character building
The article is correct when stating Iran is the target.
Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years
"This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting
with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is
it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year
or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't
show it to you!"
The Saud family has managed to make themselves even more unpopular (if that were even possible)
on what we might term "Arab Street" due to their relatively newfound comfort with the Israelis,
of course, but nobody can deny that it is smart politics. Saudi Arabia isn't Egypt, they've got
plenty of money to ease the unemployment problem. For all its flaws, its nowhere near "pseudo-failed
state" status like so many other Arab countries, despite the demographic and social pressures.
Anyway, the Saud family will last as long as the petrodollar enables them to bribe their
own people (and having young, male, single, radicalized potential troublemakers-of whom the numbers
are increasing-make trouble outside the borders rather than within the Kingdom) and CENTCOM allows
them to keep the Shi'a in the Eastern Provinces in check. Once one or both of those factors go
away, hell breaks loose in Riyadh. Unfortunately, contrary to what many Western liberals say,
what will likely to replace the Saud family in the event of a revolution is probably going to
be far worse than what exists today, if public opinion polls in the Kingdom and zakat donations
from private donors in Saudi Arabia to jihadist groups are a barometer.
On the Thirty Year's War: very astute analogy, one that I agree with to an extent. However,
a big difference is that the Sunni drastically outnumber the Shi'a in a way that the Protestants
didn't the Catholics, around 7 to 1. That is what makes Beltway overestimation of Iranian capabilities
so ludicrous.
(IMO: the Shi'a have shrines and their own version of saints, both of which are considered
heathenish by Wahhabists. They also have an organized structure. To become a mullah in Shi'a Islam,
you have to train for decades, rigorous education in philosophy, logic, astronomy, et all, much
like a rigorous classical education was required for Catholic orders -- not at all like modern
Sunni Islam where any random guy can declare a fatwa. So they are akin to the Catholics in all
this, whereas the Sunni are the Protestants. Not a perfect analogy, but makes the most sense for
Westerners.)
@jilles
dykstra Saudi Arabia and Israel spend a *lot* of money to keep the Beltway view of the
world akin to what they want. Gulf money permeates our think tanks, both on the Left and the Right:
and if Trump had an iota of intelligence last year, he would have hammered home the Clinton Foundation's
connection to shady Gulfie donors when she paraded her feminism.
>I still wonder if Trump is far more cunning than his enemies think he is.
I think both the Left and Right give Trump way too much credit. He's neither a Russian
controlled, closet white supremacist dictator in the making, nor a new Marius, heroically despised
by the Establishment, who actually wants to keep his promises to those who voted him into power.
Trump is exactly what he appears to be: the American Berlusconi, a corrupt billionaire mogul who
just makes it up as he goes along. No more, no less. The secret to Trump is that there is
no secret. And right now, unfortunately for his base, he happens to be surrounded by Republican
people who haven't learned a thing from the Bush debacle and the last few decades in general,
policy-wise. Get ready for pure McConnell fantasies for the next few years.
He's not un-clever in his own way when it comes to manipulating the media and public ratings,
but he just clearly does not know a lot about actual policy-making. Trump is at his best when
the Establishment wisdom is very clearly in the wrong, yet they can't figure it out due to their
own social bubble and worldview. In that case, Trump calls them out, as he regularly did last
year. But it isn't because Trump has a plausible alternative to offer, it is more a gut reaction
in the instant of the moment that he forgets a few minutes later.
Give me a break. It is obvious that the Syria attack and also the Moab Afganistan bomb was
purely a show of force to pressure Xi into taking out N Korea.
This is so sloppy and ham handed it is criminal. Trump is not negotiating with another CEO
where that kind of leverage works. He is negotiating with world leaders who aren't going to be
pushed off because of a few missle strikes.
This just showed Xi that Trump is an amateur.
And yeah, letting Saudi Arabia have free reign over the Middle East? Nothing could go wrong
there right?
Is it known when the President first learned that there were major US bases in Qatar? Not the
#30 Anonymous – just for accuracy not as implied criticism.
@Kiza
Then there's something called "secret diplomacy."
The common people of the United States, like the same class of people in every other country,
mean well, but they are ill-informed. Floundering about in their ignorance, they are tricked
and robbed by those who have the inside information and who therefore
know how to take advantage of every turn wheel of fortune.
The people voted for Roosevelt be cause he talked of "trust-busting" at the same time that
he was sanctioning the purchase of the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company by the Steel Trust.
They supported Wilson "because he kept us out of war" at the same time that Wilson was making
preparations to enter the war.
The rulers can negotiate "secret treaties" at home and abroad. The people, knowing nothing
of either the theory or the practice of secret diplomacy, commit all sorts of follies for which
they themselves must later foot the bill.
- R. F. PETTIGREW, TRIUMPHANT PLUTOCRACY, The Story ofAmerican Public Life from 1870 to
1920.
The wonder is that the* hoi polloi trust the hoi oligoi at all. Perhaps it's
because today we are generally misinformed rather than merely uninformed.
*Note to any lurking snarkmeisters. I realize that the words "the" and "hoi" are technically
redundant, but I am entering the borrowed phrases in accepted English.
[Europe becomes a "Khalifate"] at which point it will then turn on the other half of the
planet.
It is not clear if the quoted contributer is uneducated, misinformed, or merely channeling
historic Western insistence on lording over the rest of planet in guise of an insecure alarmist.
It is not news that Europe and the West (without any ideological basis in a Muslim Khalifate)
have for the past few hundred years been treating both halves of the planet as their prey. Keep
boo hoo hooing over those gates of Vienna episode but seriously how many HUNDREDS of millions
of people have you lot killed in the past few hundred years? Let's get real. Enough of this bullshit.
The countries who support Qatar are Iran and Russia only. Turkey has been in a swing state
of being the US vassal, getting mad at it, flirting with Russia, etc
Germany is a joke.
@Anonymous
If you want to demonstrate that Trump is an amateur you must know what his objectives are,
now, then afterwards you may be able to show that he failed.
At present there is doubt about what he really wants.
The analysis of prof Laslo Maracs, UVA, Amsterdam, of the Trump objectives is that Trump, and
his rich friends, understand that going on with the Obama way will lead to their ruin, and the
USA's.
Obama caused close economic cooperation between China en Russia.
In Khazakstan an enormous installation has been built, they call it a land port, where containers
can be transferred from the Chinese railway system to the Russian.
Containers now can be transported from China to St Peterburgh in a few days.
The USA cannot subjugate the world militarily, politically and economically impossible.
Therefore Trump is at war with Deep State, those who still want the USA to militarily subjugate
the world.
I still think that Trump's behavior can be explained by the mentioned analysis.
If Maracs is right, then it is greatest change in political course of the USA since Roosevelt
in 1933 won the elections.
And of course a decisive change in world history.
Therefore the whole western world, and all countries dependent on the USA, such as Israel and
Saudi Arabia, is in deep confusion.
@Talha
Speaking of imperialist ( aggressive) expansion, "we" were warned against it time and again,
but our lovely leadership has routinely ignored it.
I like this quote from the Republican anti-imperialist of a century ago.:
The American flag went up on Hawaii in dishonor; it came down in honor, and if it goes up
again now it will go up in infamy and shame and this Government will join the robber nations
of the world .
-R. F. Pettigrew, "Pettigrew's Speech". The Herald. Los Angeles. July 3, 1898 . p.
4.
The US would join the robber nations of the world? Ya think?
"The Saker" is absolutely right about the characterization of the "Axis of Evil" that contains
finally the right three rogue states: The US Empire, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. For sure, it's
all about Iran but the time is over to attack this country, although the Israelis and the Saudis
would love, it the US would do it. But even the Trump administration is not that stupid. To attack
Iran would be the "stupidest thing I've ever heart", said the late Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagen,
when the two crazies in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu, and Barack, tried to convince or rather push the
US into attacking Iran's nuclear installations, knowing that Iran is light years away from a nuclear
device.
It speaks volumes that the US supports Saudi Arabia's open aggression and genocide in Yemen.
But the failure shows that the Saudis are incapable of dealing with a bunch or Huthi rebels or
just take Syria where they are just capable of financing foreign mercenaries and terrorist to
overthrow an elected President. To rely on the Saudis is a lost cause.
That Russia wants to mediate in the created crisis and the Iranians and the Turks want to deliver
goods, the later are even ready to send troops, is a good sign that this criminal endeavor of
the three terror states, the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, is going to fail.
The Trump administration, however, is the first to blame because President Trump gave all the
Muslim despots a free hand when he delivered his bizarre speech in Riadah and singled out Iran
as the main "sponsor of Terrorism". After this grotesque performance, he visited the main terrorist
state in the region, Israel. As long as the US is unconditionally loyal to Israel, they can't
pursue their national interests. That such interests are identical or the relations between the
two states are "unshakable" is just rhetoric. But that the US can't escape the deadly embrace
shows whose interest the US political class is truly serving.
@jilles
dykstra If you want to demonstrate that Trump is an amateur you must know what his objectives
are, now, then afterwards you may be able to show that he failed.
At present there is doubt about what he really wants.
The analysis of prof Laslo Maracs, UVA, Amsterdam, of the Trump objectives is that Trump, and
his rich friends, understand that going on with the Obama way will lead to their ruin, and the
USA's. Obama caused close economic cooperation between China en Russia.
In Khazakstan an enormous installation has been built, they call it a land port, where containers
can be transferred from the Chinese railway system to the Russian.
Containers now can be transported from China to St Peterburgh in a few days.
The USA cannot subjugate the world militarily, politically and economically impossible.
Therefore Trump is at war with Deep State, those who still want the USA to militarily subjugate
the world. I still think that Trump's behavior can be explained by the mentioned analysis. If
Maracs is right, then it is greatest change in political course of the USA since Roosevelt in
1933 won the elections. And of course a decisive change in world history. Therefore the whole
western world, and all countries dependent on the USA, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, is in
deep confusion.
At present there is doubt about what he really wants.
I doubt that he knows beyond the license to strut around in our faces like the big cock of
the dung heap.
Paradoxically, Trump's vast holdings make him extremely vulnerable. So, effectively, he's trapped
unless he's prepared to lose much, and I highly doubt that he's into martyrdom in any form or
degree.
Much about his running for office reminds me of Jesse Ventura's win in Minnesota back in '99.
I'm quite certain that Jesse put his money where his (also rather big) mouth was and ran for
office, never expecting to win, but merely to use the bully pulpit to show the other money bags
the middle finger. To his, and everyone else's shock, he won. Unfortunately, he was opposed by
unopposable forces and though he did manage to push through some good legislation (!), it's all
been undone. Jesse was a one term governor.
Anyway, it's: Hail, Humpty Trump! Sterquilinus has risen, again! Isn't he byoo-tiful? Cock-a-doodle-
doo-doo!!!!!!
Yes, sumpin sitnks, but Hexen Hillary would've been MUCH worse Yuck!
Full disclosure.: I'm still a Ventura policy fan, though I could do without the pink boa!
"... The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it." Robert E. Lee ..."
"... Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government, which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the authority of Washington, New York's store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by Washington's intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Tyranny at home, said said General Lee . Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation of the states into one vast empire. ..."
"... Aggressive abroad, said General Lee. Is this not exactly what we see? At this moment Washington has the better part of a thousand military bases around the world, unnecessary except for the maintenance of empire. America exists in a state of constant war, bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, recently having destroyed Iraq and Libya. Washington threatens Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. Its military moves deeper into Africa. Washington sanctions Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, to no effect. It constantly tries to dominate other nations, for example adding to NATO. ..."
"... In a confederacy, states would have to approve a war. Few would unless the United States itself were threatened. ..."
"... But with a central government, those benefiting from war can concentrate money and influence only on that government. For example, military industry, Israel, big oil, Wall Street. Wars might carry the votes of states with arms factories. Other states would decline. ..."
"... In principle, the Constitution should have prevented the hijacking of the military that we now suffer. As we all should know, and some do, America cannot under the Constitution go to war without a declaration by Congress, the last one of which occurred in 1941. ..."
"... And thus, just as Marse Bob expected, the federals are out of control and make war without the least reference to the nation. If America attacks North Korea, or Russia, or China, we will read of it the day after. The central government, and only the central government, decides. ..."
"... A few days ago I read that the Pentagon contemplates sending thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan. This combines tyranny at home and aggression abroad. Who wants to send them? A few neocons in New York, the arms industry, a few generals, and several senators. It could not happen in a confederacy. ..."
"The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and
despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded
it." Robert E. Lee
The man was perceptive. Amalgamation of the states under a central government has led to exactly
the effects foreseen by General Lee.
In, say, 1950, to an appreciable though imperfect extent America resembled a confederacy. Different
regions of the America had little contact with each other, and almost no influence over one another.
The federal government was small and remote. Interstates did not exist, nor of course the internet,
nor even direct long-distance telephone dialing. West Virginia, Alabama, Massachusetts, New York
City, Texas, and California had little in common, but little conflict arose since for practical purposes
they were almost different countries. They chiefly governed themselves. The proportion of federal
to state law was small.
It is important to note that regional differences were great. In 1964 in rural Virginia, the boys
brought shotguns to school during deer season. Nobody shot anybody because it wasn't in the culture.
The culture was uniform, so no one was upset. It is when cultures are mixed, or one rules another,
that antagonism comes. Such shotgun freedom would not have worked in New York City with its variegated
and often mutually hostile ethnicities.
Regions differed importantly in degree of freedom, not just in the freedom of local populations
to govern themselves but also in individual freedom. It made a large difference in the tenor of life.
If in Texas, rural Virginia, or West Virginia you wanted to build an addition to your house, you
did. You didn't need licenses, permits, inspections, union-certified electricians. Speed limits?
Largely ignored. Federal requirements for Coast Guard approved flotation devices on your canoe? What
the hell kind of crazy idea was that?
Democracy works better the smaller the group practicing it. In a town, people can actually understand
the questions of the day. They know what matters to them. Do we build a new school, or expand the
existing one? Do we want our children to recite the pledge of allegiance, or don't we? Reenact the
Battle of Antietam? Sing Christmas carols in the town square? We can decide these things. Leave us
alone.
States similarly knew what their people wanted and, within the limits of human frailty, governed
accordingly.
Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government,
which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the
authority of Washington, New York's store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be
taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could
use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled
from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by
Washington's intelligence agencies.
Tyranny at home, said said General Lee . Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation
of the states into one vast empire.
Tyranny comes easily when those seeking it need only corrupt a single Congress, appoint a single
Supreme Court, or control the departments of one executive branch. In a confederation of largely
self-governing states, those hungry to domineer would have to suborn fifty congresses. It could not
be done. State governments are accessible to the governed. They can be ejected. They are much more
likely to be sympathetic to the desires of their constituents since they are of the same culture.
Aggressive abroad, said General Lee. Is this not exactly what we see? At this moment Washington
has the better part of a thousand military bases around the world, unnecessary except for the maintenance
of empire. America exists in a state of constant war, bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia,
recently having destroyed Iraq and Libya. Washington threatens Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.
Its military moves deeper into Africa. Washington sanctions Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and Iran,
to no effect. It constantly tries to dominate other nations, for example adding to NATO.
None of these wars and little if any of the imperial aggression interests more than a tiny fraction
of the country's people. To whom can the war against Afghanistan matter? Libya? Few people have heard
of Montenegro. Does its membership in NATO or lack of it affect Idaho?
In a confederacy, states would have to approve a war. Few would unless the United States itself
were threatened. They might well refuse to pay for wars not in their benefit, or to allow their
sons, daughters, and transgenders to be conscripted.
But with a central government, those benefiting from war can concentrate money and influence
only on that government. For example, military industry, Israel, big oil, Wall Street. Wars might
carry the votes of states with arms factories. Other states would decline.
In principle, the Constitution should have prevented the hijacking of the military that we
now suffer. As we all should know, and some do, America cannot under the Constitution go to war without
a declaration by Congress, the last one of which occurred in 1941. But a single central government
can be corrupted more easily than fifty state governments. A few billionaires, well-funded lobbies,
and the remoteness of Washington from the common consciousness make controlling the legislature as
easy as buying a pair of shoes.
And thus, just as Marse Bob expected, the federals are out of control and make war without
the least reference to the nation. If America attacks North Korea, or Russia, or China, we will read
of it the day after. The central government, and only the central government, decides.
A few days ago I read that the Pentagon contemplates sending thousands of additional troops
to Afghanistan. This combines tyranny at home and aggression abroad. Who wants to send them? A few
neocons in New York, the arms industry, a few generals, and several senators. It could not happen
in a confederacy.
Will this, as General Lee predicted, prove "the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed
all that preceded it. " ? Wait.
"... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism."
All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
"... American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's $1.1
trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both. ..."
Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has launched
an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This liberal world
order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.
Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.
For example, the orchastrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conviently
overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow of the
first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial
bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon;
support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil,
Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities
through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary rendition,' torture, and
the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the US Constitution]."
In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism."
All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."
President Trump is in trouble, Bacevich says, because "he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony."
American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's
$1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both.
"... In the meantime, in foreign-policy circles at least, a second, less explosive term vies with resistance for Trump-era signature status. This development deserves more attention than it has attracted, especially among those who believe that alongside the question that riles up the resistance-namely, what values define us?-sits another question of comparable importance: "What principles define America's role in the world?" ..."
"... So Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, describing what he refers to as the "twilight of the liberal world order," worries about the passing of "the open international economic system the United States created and helped sustain." Donald Trump's misguided emphasis on "America First," Kagan writes, suggests that he has no interest in "attempting to uphold liberal norms in the international system" or in "preserving an open economic order." ..."
"... In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl and Hal Brands embellish the point: Trump's strategic vision "diverges significantly from-and intentionally subverts-the bipartisan consensus underpinning U.S. foreign policy since World War II." Failing to "subscribe to the long-held belief that 'American exceptionalism' and U.S. leadership are intertwined," Trump is hostile to the "open, rule-based international economy" that his predecessors nurtured and sustained. ..."
"... After 9/11, when George W. Bush and his associates authorized the "enhanced interrogation" of those held in secret prisons, panic rather than sadism prompted their actions. Even for the most egregious folly, in other words, there is always some explanation, however inadequate. ..."
"... My point is not to charge à la Noam Chomsky that every action undertaken by the United States government is inherently nefarious. Rather, I am suggesting that to depict postwar U.S. policy in terms employed by the pundits quoted above is to whitewash the past. Whether their motive is to deceive or merely to evade discomfiting facts is beside the point. What they are peddling belongs to the universe of alt facts. To characterize American statecraft as "liberal internationalism" is akin to describing the business of Hollywood as "artistic excellence." ..."
"... More fundamentally, Trump's conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment's narrative of 20th-century history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts, evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century. ..."
"... However ill-suited by intellect, temperament, and character for the office he holds, Trump has seemingly intuited the need for such change. ..."
During the Age of Trump, Year One, a single word has emerged to capture the essence of the prevailing
cultural mood: resistance . Words matter, and the prominence of this particular term illuminates
the moment in which we find ourselves.
All presidents, regardless of party or program, face criticism and opposition .
Citizens disinclined to support that program protest . Marching, chanting, waving placards,
and generally raising a ruckus in front of any available camera, they express dissent . In
normal times, such activism testifies to the health of democracy.
Yet these are not normal times. In the eyes of Trump's opponents, his elevation to the pinnacle
of American politics constitutes a frontal assault on values that until quite recently appeared fixed
and unassailable. In such distressing circumstances, mere criticism, opposition, protest, and dissent
will not suffice. By their own lights, anti-Trump forces are fending off the apocalypse. As in November
1860 so too in November 2016, the outcome of a presidential election has placed at risk a way of
life.
The very word resistance conjures up memories of the brave souls who during World War II opposed
the Nazi occupation of their homelands, with the French maquis the best known example. It
carries with it an unmistakable whiff of gunpowder. After resistance comes revolution.
Simply put, Trump's most ardent opponents see him as an existential threat, with the clock ticking.
Thus the stakes could hardly be higher. Richard Parker of Harvard has conjured what he calls Resistance
School, which in three months has signed up some 30,000 anti-Trump resistors from 49 states and 33
countries. "It is our attempt to begin the long slow process of recovering and rebuilding our democracy,"
says Parker. Another group styling itself the DJT Resistance declares that Trump represents "Hatred,
Bigotry, Xenophobia, Sexism, Racism, and Greed."
This is not language suggesting the possibility of dialogue or compromise. Indeed, in such quarters
references to incipient fascism have become commonplace. Comparisons between Trump and Hitler abound.
"It takes willful blindness," writes Paul Krugman in the New York Times, "not to see the parallels
between the rise of fascism and our current political nightmare." And time is running short. Journalist
Chris Hedges says "a last chance for resistance" is already at hand.
In the meantime, in foreign-policy circles at least, a second, less explosive term vies with
resistance for Trump-era signature status. This development deserves more attention than it has attracted,
especially among those who believe that alongside the question that riles up the resistance-namely,
what values define us?-sits another question of comparable importance: "What principles define America's
role in the world?"
That second term, now creeping into the vocabulary of foreign-policy specialists, is liberal
, often used interchangeably with the phrase rules-based and accompanied by additional
modifiers such as open , international , and normative. All of these serve as
synonyms for enlightened and good .
So Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, describing what he refers to as the "twilight
of the liberal world order," worries about the passing of "the open international economic system
the United States created and helped sustain." Donald Trump's misguided emphasis on "America First,"
Kagan writes, suggests that he has no interest in "attempting to uphold liberal norms in the international
system" or in "preserving an open economic order."
Commenting on Trump's Inaugural Address, Nicole Gaouette, CNN national-security reporter,
expresses her dismay that it contained "no reference to America's traditional role as a global leader
and shaper of international norms." Similarly, a report in the Financial Times bemoans what
it sees as "a clear signal about Mr. Trump's disregard for many of the international norms that have
governed America as the pillar of the liberal economic order." The historian Jeremi Suri, barely
a week into Trump's presidency , charges Trump with "launching a direct attack on the liberal
international order that really made America great after the depths of the Great Depression." At
the Council on Foreign Relations, Stewart Patrick concurs: Trump's election, he writes, "imperils
the liberal international order that America has championed since World War II." Thomas Wright, another
Brookings scholar, piles on: Trump "wants to undo the liberal international order the United States
built and replace it with a 19th-century model of nationalism and mercantilism."
In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl and Hal Brands embellish the point: Trump's strategic vision
"diverges significantly from-and intentionally subverts-the bipartisan consensus underpinning U.S.
foreign policy since World War II." Failing to "subscribe to the long-held belief that 'American
exceptionalism' and U.S. leadership are intertwined," Trump is hostile to the "open, rule-based international
economy" that his predecessors nurtured and sustained.
Need more? Let Gen. David Petraeus have the last word: "To keep the peace," the soldier-turned-investment-banker
writes in an essay entitled "America Must Stand Tall," the United States has established "a system
of global alliances and security commitments," thereby nurturing "an open, free and rules-based international
economic order." To discard this legacy, he suggests, would be catastrophic.
You get the drift. Liberalism, along with norms, rules, openness, and internationalism: these
ostensibly define the postwar and post-Cold War tradition of American statecraft. Allow Trump to
scrap that tradition and you can say farewell to what Stewart Patrick refers to as "the global community
under the rule of law" that the United States has upheld for decades.
But what does this heartwarming perspective exclude? We can answer that question with a single
word: history.
Or, somewhat more expansively, among the items failing to qualify for mention in the liberal internationalist,
rules-based version of past U.S. policy are the following: meddling in foreign elections; coups and
assassination plots in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere;
indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms
race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in
Iran, Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador,
and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities
through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; "extraordinary
rendition," torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process.
Granted, for each of these, there was a rationale, rooted in a set of identifiable assumptions,
ambitions, and fears. The CIA did not conspire with Britain's MI6 in 1953 to overthrow Iran's democratically
elected president just for the hell of it. It did so because shelving Mohammad Mosaddegh seemingly
offered the prospect of eliminating an annoying problem. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson did not commit U.S.
combat troops to South Vietnam because he was keen to fight a major ground war in Asia but because
the consequences of simply allowing events to take their course looked to be even worse. After 9/11,
when George W. Bush and his associates authorized the "enhanced interrogation" of those held in secret
prisons, panic rather than sadism prompted their actions. Even for the most egregious folly, in other
words, there is always some explanation, however inadequate.
Yet collectively, the actions and episodes enumerated above do not suggest a nation committed
to liberalism, openness, or the rule of law. What they reveal instead is a pattern of behavior common
to all great powers in just about any era: following the rules when it serves their interest to do
so; disregarding the rules whenever they become an impediment. Some regimes are nastier than others,
but all are law-abiding when the law works to their benefit and not one day longer. Even Hitler's
Third Reich and Stalin's USSR punctiliously observed the terms of their non-aggression pact as long
as it suited both parties to do so.
My point is not to charge à la Noam Chomsky that every action undertaken by the United States
government is inherently nefarious. Rather, I am suggesting that to depict postwar U.S. policy in
terms employed by the pundits quoted above is to whitewash the past. Whether their motive is to deceive
or merely to evade discomfiting facts is beside the point. What they are peddling belongs to the
universe of alt facts. To characterize American statecraft as "liberal internationalism" is akin
to describing the business of Hollywood as "artistic excellence."
"Invocations of the 'rules-based international order,'" Politico's Susan Glasser rightly
observes, "had never before caused such teary-eyed nostalgia." Whence comes this sudden nostalgia
for something that never actually existed? The answer is self-evident: it's a response to Donald
Trump.
Prior to Trump's arrival on the scene, few members of the foreign-policy elite, now apparently
smitten with norms, fancied that the United States was engaged in creating any such order. America's
purpose was not to promulgate rules but to police an informal empire that during the Cold War encompassed
the "Free World" and became more expansive still once the Cold War ended. The pre-Trump Kagan, writing
in 2012, neatly summarizes that view:
The existence of the American hegemon has forced all other powers to exercise unusual restraint,
curb normal ambitions, and avoid actions that might lead to the formation of a U.S.-led coalition
of the kind that defeated Germany twice, Japan once, and the Soviet Union, more peacefully, in
the Cold War.
Leave aside the dubious assertions and half-truths contained within that sentence and focus on
its central claim: the United States as a hegemon that forces other nations to bend to its will.
Strip away the blather about rules and norms and here you come to the essence of what troubles Kagan
and others who purport to worry about the passing of "liberal internationalism." Their concern is
not that Trump won't show adequate respect for rules and norms. What has them all in a lather is
that he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony.
More fundamentally, Trump's conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in
establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining
American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment's narrative of 20th-century
history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts
dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts,
evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment
believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century.
Trump doesn't see it that way, as his appropriation of the historically loaded phrase "America
First" attests. In his view, what might have occurred had the United States not waged war
against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and had it not subsequently confronted the Soviet Union matters
less than what did occur when the assertion of hegemonic prerogatives found the United States
invading Iraq in 2003 with disastrous results.
In effect, Trump dismisses the lessons of the 20th century as irrelevant to the 21st. Crucially,
he goes a step further by questioning the moral basis for past U.S. actions. Thus, his extraordinary
response to a TV host's charge that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a killer. "There are a lot
of killers," Trump retorted. "We've got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?"
In offering this one brief remark, Trump thereby committed the ultimate heresy. Of course, no serious
person believes that the United States is literally innocent. What members of the foreign-policy
establishment-including past commanders-in-chief-have insisted is that the United States act
as if it were innocent, with prior sins expunged and America's slate wiped clean. This describes
the ultimate U.S. perquisite and explains why, in the eyes of Robert Kagan et al., Russian actions
in Crimea, Ukraine, or Syria count for so much while American actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya
count for so little.
The desperate exercise in historical revisionism that now credits the United States with having
sought all along to create a global community under the rule of law represents that establishment's
response to the heresies Trump has been spouting (and tweeting) since his famous ride down the escalator
at Trump Tower.
Yet in reclassifying yesterday's hegemon as today's promulgator and respecter of norms, members
of that establishment perpetrate a fraud. Whether Americans, notably gullible when it comes to history,
will fall for this charade remains to be seen. Thus far at least, Trump himself, who probably knows
a thing or two about snake-oil salesmen, shows little inclination to take the bait.
Say this for the anti-Trump resistance: while the fascism-just-around-the-corner rhetoric may
be overheated and a touch overwrought, it qualifies as forthright and heartfelt. While not sharing
the view that Trump will rob Americans of their freedoms, I neither question the sincerity nor doubt
the passion of those who believe otherwise. Indeed, I am grateful to them for acting so forcefully
on their convictions. They are inspiring.
Not so with those who now wring their hands about the passing of the fictive liberal international
order credited to enlightened American statecraft. They are engaged in a great scam, working assiduously
to sustain the pretense that the world of 2017 remains essentially what it was in 1937 or 1947 or
1957 when it is not.
Today's Russia is not a reincarnation of the Soviet Union; the People's Republic of China is not
Imperial Japan; and the Islamic State in no way compares to Nazi Germany. Most of all, United States
in the era of Donald Trump is not the nation that elected Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight
Eisenhower, not least of all in the greatly reduced willingness of Americans to serve as instruments
of state power, as the failed post-9/11 assertions of hegemony have demonstrated.
The world has changed in fundamental ways. So too has the United States. Those changes require
that the principles guiding U.S. policy also change accordingly.
However ill-suited by intellect, temperament, and character for the office he holds, Trump has
seemingly intuited the need for such change. In this regard, if in none other, I'm with the Donald.
But note the irony. Trump may come closer to full-fledged historical illiteracy than any president
since Warren G. Harding. Small wonder then that his rejection of the mythic past long employed to
preempt serious debate regarding U.S. policy gives fits to the perpetrators of those myths.
"... Indeed, surely such an insight is absolutely necessary, what with Russia being the biggest country in Europe, a major nuclear power, and with the deepening tensions arising from Russia's geostrategic differences and rivalry with Washington in recent years. Yet for the Western liberal commentariat, condemnation rather than understanding is the order of the day, evidenced in the barrage of criticism with which Stone's documentary series on the Russian leader has been received in the Western mainstream. The interview the filmmaker did with liberal US talk show host Stephen Colbert on his project is a prime example. https://www.youtube.com/embed/k6XQOD-7VhA Colbert's line of questioning amounted to a regurgitation of the very caricature that Stone had set out to move beyond in over 20 hours of interviews on an abundance of topics with Putin – his upbringing, family history, career, thoughts on leadership, the challenges Russia faced during the dark days of the 1990s, his relations with various US presidents, NATO, and so on. Yet for the likes of Mr. Colbert it's much easier to go with the official narrative, contained in his first question of the interview: " What do you say to people who say that yours [Oliver Stone's] is a fawning interview of a brutal dictator? ..."
"... Listening to Colbert's studio audience laugh at Stone in response to his statement that Putin had been unfairly treated and abused by the US media, I was minded of the treatment meted out to the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. Such a comparison is not as outlandish as some may think on first impressions. ..."
"... As everybody knows, in times of war – whether cold or hot – a nation's tolerance for dissent, for daring to swim against the cultural tide, evaporates, even though it is precisely at such times when dissent is most necessary. After all, in the case of the rising tensions that we have witnessed between Russia and the US recently, it is not people like Stephen Colbert who will be sent into combat should those tensions spill over into direct military conflict. ..."
"... ' Carthago delenda est ..."
"... Oliver Stone is to be commended for trying to wake America up to the damage it does and has done around the world over many decades. Those who would attack and laugh at him for doing so merely confirm the degeneration of a culture built on foundations not of wisdom, but of crass ignorance. ..."
John Wight has written for newspapers and websites across the world, including the Independent, Morning
Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and Foreign Policy Journal. He is
also a regular commentator on RT and BBC Radio. John is currently working on a book exploring the
role of the West in the Arab Spring. You can follow him on Twitter @JohnWight1 Published time: 16
Jun, 2017 Oliver Stone's documentary series on Vladimir Putin, you would think, is required viewing
for Western audiences looking to see beyond the crude caricature of Russia's president in order to
gain an insight into his worldview. Indeed, surely such an insight is absolutely necessary, what
with Russia being the biggest country in Europe, a major nuclear power, and with the deepening tensions
arising from Russia's geostrategic differences and rivalry with Washington in recent years.
Yet for the Western liberal commentariat, condemnation rather than understanding is the order
of the day, evidenced in the barrage of criticism with which Stone's documentary series on the Russian
leader has been received in the Western mainstream.
The interview the filmmaker did with liberal US talk show host Stephen Colbert on his project
is a prime example.
Colbert's line of questioning amounted to a regurgitation of the very caricature that Stone had
set out to move beyond in over 20 hours of interviews on an abundance of topics with Putin – his
upbringing, family history, career, thoughts on leadership, the challenges Russia faced during the
dark days of the 1990s, his relations with various US presidents, NATO, and so on.
Yet for the likes of Mr. Colbert it's much easier to go with the official narrative, contained
in his first question of the interview: " What do you say to people who say that yours [Oliver
Stone's] is a fawning interview of a brutal dictator? " Not only the question, but also the
casual and insouciant way in which it was delivered, confirmed the dumbing-down of news information,
analysis and commentary that has been underway in the United States over decades.
The result is a culture so intellectually shallow it is frightening to behold, one in which ignorance
is celebrated rather than scorned, in which national exceptionalism and arrogance is exalted rather
than rejected. And woe betide anyone, such as Oliver Stone, who dares try to penetrate this fog of
ignorance and sense of exceptionalism that has so corroded US cultural values.
Listening to Colbert's studio audience laugh at Stone in response to his statement that Putin
had been unfairly treated and abused by the US media, I was minded of the treatment meted out to
the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. Such a comparison is not as outlandish as some may think
on first impressions.
Think about it: for daring to question the prevailing orthodoxy, received truths, and dominant
ideas the philosopher was lampooned, ridiculed and ultimately condemned to death by the powers that
be in Athens, considered at the time to be the home of democracy and liberty, just as Washington
is – or to be more accurate claims that it is – in our time.
Interestingly, the clamor to condemn Socrates took place when tensions between Athens and its
Greek city-state rival and adversary, Sparta, were still high just a few years after the end of the
Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC).
As everybody knows, in times of war – whether cold or hot – a nation's tolerance for dissent,
for daring to swim against the cultural tide, evaporates, even though it is precisely at such times
when dissent is most necessary. After all, in the case of the rising tensions that we have witnessed
between Russia and the US recently, it is not people like Stephen Colbert who will be sent into combat
should those tensions spill over into direct military conflict.
With this in mind, perhaps it would have been more to the talk show host's benefit to have listened
carefully to a man, in Oliver Stone, who has experienced combat, and who does have first-hand experience
of a devastating war unleashed in the cause of the very national exceptionalism previously described.
As a filmmaker, Oliver Stone's body of work, reaching all the way back to the 1980s, is a testament
to his integrity both as an artist and as a human being. From 'Salvador' in 1986, an unflinching
expose of covert US support for right-wing death squads in El Salvador, all the way up to his latest
movie 'Snowden' in 2016, which tells the story of US intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden, this
is a filmmaker with a fierce passion for truth. As such, it is a fair bet that in generations to
come his works will still command respect and serious analysis. Could we say the same about Stephen
Colbert's body of work?
To ask the question is to answer it.
' Carthago delenda est ' – Carthage must be destroyed. These words of Cato the Elder,
which the Roman statesman and orator is said to have repeated at the conclusion of every one of his
speeches, is the sentiment behind the campaign of demonization against Vladimir Putin that is a feature
of Western cultural life.
It has become so pervasive and obsessive you would think that it was the Russian leader who had
the destruction of entire countries on his record and conscience – i.e. Afghanistan, Yugoslavia,
Iraq and Libya – and that it was his foreign policy that had killed more people and sown more chaos
than at any time since World War II.
Oliver Stone is to be commended for trying to wake America up to the damage it does and has done
around the world over many decades. Those who would attack and laugh at him for doing so merely confirm
the degeneration of a culture built on foundations not of wisdom, but of crass ignorance.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The article of Anatoly Karlin is junk, but some responses are really interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... The bright idea could be:" Since we won the cold war, and we can't win any other kinds of wars, why not start a new cold war and claim some success again?" I can perfectly understand the rationale here. ..."
"... The tide would seem to be flowing against most of Russia's worst enemies. The US and its European satellite states become economically less globally dominant with every year that passes, which is the overriding issue, and the prospects of serious economic/political/social disorder in the US and UK, and a separation of Europe from its post-WW2 US domination, seem to be becoming more realistic, and closer. ..."
"... Anatoly has gotten noticeably more critical of Putin since he moved to Russia. He is starting to sound like jaded American Trump supporters sound about Trump. ..."
This is a bit tendentious. He stressed that Russia's help to the people of
Donbass continues and can change according to what is appropriate for a
changed situation. Meanwhile, it's really strained to find something
negative to say about Syria at the moment.
@German_reader
(1) I supported the Syria intervention on the understanding it was a Spanish
Civil War like environment for live air force training. There are some signs
that ground involvement is increasing to a scale I am no longer comfortable
with supporting, due to the SAA's chronic inability to improve (I was always
wary about this from my earliest articles about the Syrian intervention,
knowing about the history of Arab military incompetence, and it seems the
more pessimistic interpretation was right).
Not only are more and more Russian soldiers are dying there (they are
formally mercenaries, but functionally many are soldiers who joined up
because the pay is 3x better) but the whole operation there is vulnerable to
US blackmail, because the US is militarily dominant in the region and Trump
has proved to be a wildcard there despite his campaign rhetoric.
Incidentally, the defeat of Islamic State won't change any of that. If
anything the situation will get more dangerous, since neocons will then be
able to more convincingly argue that bombing Assad would not result in
Islamic State gains.
(2) The Ukrainians should know that continuing to bombard Donetsk and
Lugansk will result in serious retaliation against them. At the moment, they
can do so with impunity, while the Kremlin ties the demoralized NAF's hands
with its autistic focus on the Minsk Agreements. Even though Kiev has still
made no moves towards fulfilling its end of the deal, the West turns a blind
eye and continues to sanction Russia (and indeed to increase sanctions), so
there's no even an economic case to be made here.
It is absolutely bizarre that Russia accounted for 40% of foreign
investment in Ukraine in 2016, especially considering the way
it conveys its thanks
.
It is also bizarre that there are basically weekly deportation cases
against Ukrainian citizens who are seeking asylum in Russia who are wanted
for separatism/treason/on the Peacekeeper hit list in Ukraine. Even
regardless of your stance on the Donbass conflict, I think it's safe that
say that most people would agree that Russia has a significant degree of
responsibility for such people. More so than for Tajik economic migrants,
anyway.
The Ukrainians should know that continuing to bombard Donetsk and
Lugansk will result in serious retaliation against them.
But what form should that retaliation take? I mean ok, I can see how the
situation might be frustrating for a Russian nationalist, but any form of
military escalation would be fraught with grave risks imo.
Your views on the Syrian intervention are convincing to me, Russia should
definitely avoid deeper involvement.
"No bold new ideas about social, economic, or foreign policy .etc"
Russians seem incapable of thinking and acting in ordinary, mundane terms.
The current Russian president had been telling the nation to gradually
develop through evolution not revolutions ever since he assumed power, and
yet here you are looking for "bold ideas" and "grand visions".
Well, dissolving the Soviet Union was certainly one "bold idea".
it is now clear that Putin does not appear to have any any new ideas,
plans, or visions for the long-term future apart from hunkering down and
perhaps hoping that the state apparatuses in the US and Western Europe
continue degrading even faster than in Russia.
I actually think that this is not a bad strategy. Because when it comes
to having no new ideas, the west is far outperforming Russia. The perfect
example of this is the starting of the cold war 2. I believe that the
decision to do this might have been partially motivated by the outcome of
the 1st cold war.
The bright idea could be:" Since we won the cold war, and we can't win
any other kinds of wars, why not start a new cold war and claim some success
again?" I can perfectly understand the rationale here.
If you can't win any wars of the hot type, then start a cold one and try
to keep the winning record in that category. Although, I doubt it that they
will be able to keep the perfect score at the end of Cold War 2.
The quote that some attribute to Lenin that capitalists will sell them
the rope with which they'll be hanged. I think that quote implies too much
labor. No need to buy or sell anything to the capitalists. Just sit back and
relax. They'll make the rope and they'll hang themselves with it, the way
the things are going, although, since they outsourced all the manufacturing
to China, it could be a Chinese made rope after all.
I think your criticisms are pretty unfair, given the odds and the threats
Russia has been up against over the past two decades. Quite apart from the
general truth that hindsight is 20/20 whereas foresight is not, most of the
policies you suggest should have been done would not necessarily have
succeeded, and/or would have carried serious costs and/or risks of their
own, if they had been done in advance of the situations you now regard as
justifying them.
Putin's not a miracle worker, but the record seems to establish he has
been a solid and very competent leader.
The way things are at the minute, I don't think there are any better
options, Foreign policy wise, than to sit and wait for better
circumstances. Did they ever come up with serious alternatives to swift,
visa and mastercard?
The tide would seem to be flowing against most of Russia's worst enemies.
The US and its European satellite states become economically less globally
dominant with every year that passes, which is the overriding issue, and the
prospects of serious economic/political/social disorder in the US and UK,
and a separation of Europe from its post-WW2 US domination, seem to be
becoming more realistic, and closer.
A degree of masterly inactivity, as far as radically changing policies is
concerned, seems called for.
The SAA are winning, albeit slowly. They have cleared Aleppo province of IS,
reduced rebel enclaves around Damascus and are making reasonable progress
toward relieving Deir Ezzor.
Not sure how true or not this is, but I am sure that to change their
opinions would not be too hard to do. If the narrative being sold was that
Putin was a racist and hated BLM, I am certain a large chunk would swallow
this without giving it a second thought.
Anatoly has gotten noticeably more critical of Putin since he moved to
Russia. He is starting to sound like jaded American Trump supporters sound
about Trump.
"... Spain in Our Hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939, ..."
"... The Nazis and Franco were enablers of The Muslims. I fully support the complete destruction of the Nazi War Machine by Stalin's Army no f ..g apologies. ..."
"... Moral of the story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch neoliberalism and embrace national socialism. ..."
"... "Even though the authority of this government steadily declined, it would remain the key actor for the next 5 months, with responsibility for guiding the country and avoiding breakdown or civil war. It failed to meet these responsibilities because its priorities were, first, to maintain an exclusively all leftist government that rejected any compromise with the centre of moderate right and, second, to avoid any break with the revolutionaries because their support was necessary to remain in power. The Republic's first historian, the noted Catalan journalist Josep Pla, termed the strategy Azaña's "ideological Kerenskyism" referring to the Russian prime minister who fell to the Bolsheviks." ..."
"... The main goal of the Republican Party is to promote the vitality of Corporate America. If appealing to political correctness can get corporations good MSM press, to increased profits, they will promote that agenda even more vigorously than the statist in our government (and academia). Thus, the Republican party will treat the rest of us as expendable to that cause, and use war talk to distract us from our domestic problems of bad economics and racial balkanization with the whitey hating Afro Americans. ..."
"... The corporatist Republicans have become just as much the enemy to the people, that they are suppose to serve, as the statist Democrats. And that is why they will standby and give tacit approval to the Democrats that try to eliminate Trump. It is not so much Trump the man they fear as much as the interest of the voters he represents. ..."
"... Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of flag-waving. ..."
"... As the Trump interlude has amply demonstrated, formally occupying public office, in and of itself, does not really correlate with meaningful political control over policy. ..."
"... Bingo!!!! .you sir have nailed it .That's just another way of saying that Franco and Pinochet were anti-Nationalist Traitors yet some of the little twerps on the Alt Right are enamoured of these two filthy cockroaches ..."
"... I wish Allende had been the thug that Gringo makes him out to be for then Allende would have sent in Nationalist Death Squads to exterminate Pinochet and his neo-liberal Chicago Milton Friedman little cockroach economist Pineras in a soccer stadium It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean Constitution that was the very thing that drove him to his Suicide when the Pinochet Fascist Neo-Liberal Death Squads had him surrounded .. ..."
"... Allende was a Nationalist who pursued a independent path of economic development .and this was his great crime in the mind of War Criminal Henry Kissinger .The Coup proceeded forward .and continues this day in Chile .Chile is back on the neoliberal plantation . ..."
What Spain's Civil War Can Teach America's Patriots
This pattern has repeated across centuries. In
200 Years Together
, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described how
Communist revolutionaries
in Tsarist Russia were supported by
intellectual circles. Their young leadership often came from the privileged
classes, including a
significant number
of Jews. (Curiously,
200 Years Together
,
while it is available in French and German, has never been published in
English, although bootleg translations
circulate
on the
internet
.)
Now, however, there seems to be physical resistance
from the American Right. Perhaps the most important case: the "
Battle
of Berkeley
" last month, when a loose alliance of conservatives,
"Alt-Lite" free speech supporters and Alt-Right activists fought and beat an
Antifa attempt to shut down a demonstration. MSM reports suggest Antifa were
generally stunned when patriots fought back.
David Hines urges a "
National
Divorce
" before things get worse. I'd argue a "National Divorce" would
simply allow the Left a beachhead from which eventually to secure the entire
country. And it is unlikely even to work. It seems more likely there will be
a larger-scale conflict and political groups willing to use violence will
grow larger and more organized.
One of the most likely models of how the
polity could collapse into civil strife: the Spanish Civil War. The
September/October 2016 edition of
Foreign Affairs
,
a
publication of the Council on Foreign Relations,
featured a review
by Sebastian Faber of Adam Hochschild's
Spain in
Our Hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939,
profiling
the
Abraham Lincoln Brigade
(or 15
th
International Brigade), a
pro-Communist force which fought for the Republic as "shock troops."
But what of the Right? If the
Spanish Civil War
were to serve as a template for a second American
Civil War, we should examine the two main rightist paramilitary groups in
Spain. They were the Carlists
,
a monarchist group, whose fighters
were known as
requetés
and considered the most fanatical fighters on the
Nationalist side, and the right-wing
Falange
(= Phalanx). They provided an important source of
manpower to the Nationalist Army.
On the eve of the Spanish Civil War, the
Falangists numbered about 40,000 men. The Carlists had at least 6,000 men in
Pamplona, Navarre and are estimated to have had a minimum of 10,000 men. All
day long on the second day of the war, conservative farmers streamed to
Pamplona to volunteer for the Carlist forces.
In the first days of the fighting, the
Nationalists relied heavily
on such militias:
regular soldiers were often outnumbered. At the
outset, the Carlists secured the region of Navarre. One column of 1,400 men,
mostly
requetés
, marched to Saragossa, to reinforce the army
garrison and secure the town.
Falangists contributed to the defense of the town of
Oviedo, in Asturias. The soldiers and Falangists
withstood a siege for months,
until relieved in mid-October, 1936. In
Toledo, Falangists contributed at least 200 men to the 1,300-man force
defending the Alcázar Fortress,
which
held out,
until relieved by Franco in late September, 1936. In August in
the Saragossa region, they had at least 2,000 men. In the
advance on Madrid
, the Falangists contributed a significant portion of
the 20,000 men who attacked the city.
Without these highly-motivated militias,
it would have been impossible for the Nationalists to succeed in the war
against the Leftist government; the rebellion would have collapsed in its
first week.
Similarly, should civil war visit America
again, it may come down to locally-organized groups of both Left and Right,
as the regular U.S. military will be spread thin (and probably divided
Stanley Payne's book,
Spain: a Unique History
, discusses the causes of the Spanish Civil War.
Guess what: the meme that has been pushed for decades, that
"The evil
Fascists wouldn't let the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leftist government carry
out its program- a program which was carried out in accordance with the law
and the Constitution"
doesn't quite cut it.
One hypothesis is that the Civil War began in 1934, with the Socialist
insurrection in Asturias, which cost 1,500 lives. The right was in control
of the government at the time. Payne dismisses this, but adds that the
Socialist insurrection and its aftermath increased the polarization of
Spanish society.
There is also the Breakdown hypothesis, which focuses on what occurred after
the election of a left-wing government in 1936. As Payne considers this
important, I will not edit out his points.
The military rebels who began the conflict at first declared almost
unanimously that they were taking violent action not to overthrow the
Republic but to save the Republic, since the constitution had become a
dead letter, and law and order had broken down. Certainly the breakdown
of law and constitutional order that had occurred in Spain was
unprecedented in any modern European country in peacetime.
Unpunished
violation of the law took place in at least fourteen areas.
1. The electoral victory of the Left was later followed by the
greatest strike wave in Spanish history, featuring many labor stoppages,
in some cases without practical economic goals but rather seeking direct
domination of labor relations and of private property, often accompanied
by violence and destruction of property.
2. Illegal seizures of property, especially in the southern provinces,
sometimes legalized ex post facto by the government under the pressure of
the revolutionary movements. Manuel Tuñón de Lara has calculated that,
between illegal seizures and the acceleration of the agrarian reform,
approximately 5 percent of all agrarian property in the country changed
hands within five months - not a revolution, but a precipitous change.3
3. A wave of arson and property destruction, particularly in the
south.
4. In addition to the destruction, numerous seizures of churches and
church properties in the south and east and in some other parts of the
country.
5. Closure of Catholic schools, provoking a crisis in education, and
in a number of localities forcible suppression of Catholic religious
activities as well, accompanied by the expulsion of priests.
6. Broad extension of censorship, with severe limitation of freedom of
expression and of assembly.
7. Major economic deterioration, which has never been studied in
detail, with a severe stock market decline, the flight of capital, and in
some southern provinces abandonment of cultivation, since the costs of
the harvest would be greater than its market value. Hence several
southern Socialist mayors proposed the "penalty of remaining" for
proprietors, rather than the penalty of exile.
8. Many hundreds - indeed several thousand - arbitrary political
arrests of members of rightist parties.
9. Impunity of criminal action for members of Popular Front
organizations, who were rarely arrested. Occasionally anarchosyndicalists
were detained, since they were not members of the Popular Front.
10. The politicization of justice through new legislation and
policies, in order to facilitate arbitrary political arrests and
prosecution, and to place the rightist parties outside the law. In spite
of the four violent insurrections of leftist parties against the Republic
- which had scant counterpart among the rightist parties - none of their
members were charged with illegal action in this regard, since justice
had become completely politicized, in keeping with the Popular Front
program.
11. Forcible dissolution of rightist groups, beginning with the
Falange in March and the Catholic trade unions in May, and moving toward
the CEDA and Renovación Española in July. Illegalizing the rightist
organizations was designed to create a virtual political monopoly for the
leftist parties, first achieved in the trade union groups.
12. Falsification of electoral procedures and results, which,
according to Alcalá-Zamora, passed through four phases. The first was
produced by the series of disorders in various provinces on February
16-19, which destroyed a certain number of ballots, produced repeat
voting of dubious legality in several locales, and distorted final
registration of the votes. The second phase occurred during the run-off
elections two weeks later, when, in the face of physical intimidation,
the conservative parties withdrew. The third phase was the arbitrary and
partisan actions of the Electoral Comission of the Cortes in the second
half of March, almost universally condemned by historians, which
arbitrarily reassigned a sizable number of seats from the Right to the
Left. The fourth phase was the extreme coercion exerted in the new Cortes
elections in Cuenca and Granada at the beginning of May, with the
arbitrary detention of rightist candidates and activists and severe
restriction of rightist activity, producing completely unilateral
elections, taken by the opposition to the government as a signal of the
end of democratic voting in Spain.4
13. Subversion of the security forces through reappointment of
revolutionary officers and personnel earlier prosecuted for violent and
subversive actions. One of these commanded the illegal police squad that
kidnapped Calvo Sotelo. Equally notable was the addition of special
"delegados de policía," normally activists of the Socialist and Communist
parties named ad hoc as deputy police, though not regular members of the
security forces. This followed the precedent of the Hitler government in
appointing violent and subversive SA and SS activists as Hilfspolizei in
Germany in 1933, and one of these fired the bullet that killed Calvo
Sotelo. It should be noted, however, that this procedure was not followed
on a massive and systematic scale, as in Germany.
14. The growth of political violence, although its extension was very
unequal in different parts of the country. Some provinces experienced
relative calm, while in others there was widespread violence, especially
in some of the capital cities. Estimates by researchers of those killed
by political violence within five and a half months range from a low of
300 to a high of 444.5
The assassination of Calvo Sotelo merits further comment. Guardia de
Asalto personnel killed and kidnapped him in response to Falangists killing
José Castillo, a Spanish Police Guardia de Asalto (Assault Guard)
lieutenant. As José Calvo Sotelo was a member of Parliament and a leading
spokesman for the right, his killing was considered an escalation. The
government's not arresting Calvo Sotelo's killers- even more damning when it
all knew that government operatives kidnapped and killed him- is considered
the trigger that began the Civil War.
In any event, all the fourteen points are under the heading of
unpunished violations of the law.
A big problem was that the left in power in 1936 was divided in its
agenda- some moderate, some extreme. Which reminds me of the MIR pushing
violent land takeovers in Allende's Chile, while the Communists told the MIR
to cool it. In both countries, extremists on the left, instead of advancing
the revolution they desired, triggered a rightist reaction.
Franco was Death Squad for the Land Owning Class same as Pinchet .if they
both re-appeared on the American scene they would be murdering the Alt Right
to the extent that the Alt Right spoke on behalf of The Historic Native Born
White American Working Class.
At the Battle for Blair Mountain Franco and Pinochet and their
reactionary Death Squadrons would have murdered Bill Blizzard and his Army
of Coal Miners .
"During the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939, and especially in the early
months of the conflict, individual clergymen were executed while entire
religious communities were persecuted, leading to a death toll of 13
bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarians, 2,364 monks and friars and
283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 clerical victims, as part of what is referred
to as Spain's Red Terror".
That illustrates the anti-christian animus of
the 'Left' then and what's 'left' of it today. It is defining for the 'Left'
in general.
Civil wars hardly ever are civil.
In two ways, wars between citizens are barbaric, ferocious, and always
foreign countries interfere.
This was also the case in the USA Civil War.
The Spanish Civil War was the
clash between nationalism and communism, the west, including GB and USA, but
mainly Hitler and Mussolini, against Stalin.
GB sent the plane to the Cape Verdian islands to bring Franco to the
Canarian islands, Hitler's Junckers ferried troops from Morocco to Spain.
The Syrian civil war of course is war between the west, including Israel,
and Russia.
I do not see a USA civil war, a revolution is possible, what then army
and police will do, I do not know.
Killing one's own citizens never was easy.
Civil war in Europe seems far more probabable, in France is has already
begun, Muslims against non Muslims.
In NE Germany a western city has been built, on a military excercise base,
to simulate city warfare.
I've mentioned this before, but I think it's very interesting that Hitler's
Brownshirts were recruited to stop communists from breaking up his rallies.
I don't know if Hitler would have become what he did otherwise, but having
to arm oneself to express oneself seems a dangerous way to begin.
I
recommend this six-part BBC documentary on the Spanish Civil War. It's
informative and a beautiful document in its own right.
In addition to saving Spain from the horrors of communism, he also spared
Spain the horrors of World War 2 (although Spanish volunteers served
admirably on the Eastern front). For these reasons he was clearly the
greatest wartime leader.
I can not believe this piece of garbage-grossly inaccurate-"Spain became a
democracy". Have you lost your mind! Franco won and Spain became a
dictatorship idiot. He built a monument to himself where his corpse rots.
Did you ever hear of Guernica??????? Google it–I do not place anymore value
on this site.
Please, either learn to write English or stay off the net. The coal miner
disputes at Blair Mountain had nothing to do with what is happening in
America today and even less with Franco and the Spanish Civil War. Franco
quite properly smashed a leftist conspiracy to destroy Spain. Good God! How
anyone in 2017 can defend any Marxist crackpots, like the traitors who
Franco fought against, is simply incredible. Does the name Stalin ring a
bell? The Communist Bloc? Decades of Communist murder and oppression? Go
back to your Wobbly meeting, you retrograde leftie.
The Spanish Peasants had very good reasons to revolt against the Oligarchs
in Spain. The Battle for Blair Mountain is very relevant to the issue of
Oligarch rule in the US in 2017.
You use the terms like "Marxist" and
"Communist" that renders these terms analytically useless.
Franco was a hit man for the Land Owning Oligarchs in Spain. And he used
a North African Rape-Pillage and Plunder Mohammadan Rape Army to attack The
Spanish Working Class .To quote Franco's recruitment pitch the the North
African Muzzies "WE ARE ALL SPANISH!!!" Diversity is a Blessing 1930′s
Fascist Spain version
The Nazis and Franco were enablers of The Muslims. I fully support the
complete destruction of the Nazi War Machine by Stalin's Army no f ..g
apologies.
No one should have any doubt that Anne Coulter's late father Mining
Company Death Squad Organizer John Coulter would have enthusiastically
employed the likes of Franco and Pinochet to use Death Squadron Violence
against the striking coal miners
There is a lot more I can say but I wait for your Alt Right
twerp-that-you-are response .
I am from the UK, so I do make certain assumptions about Americans which may
not be well-founded. i.e. that a lot of the gun enthusiasts are potential
Charles Whitmans and politically of the right as well.
However, going from
the Internet I don't see Trots in America, not very numerous anyway. walking
around with guns, it tends to be people who think the Democratic National
Convention is the Comintern – ie. very, very right-wing indeed.
Do tell me right-wing people in America think the M-16 is a highway. Allay
my prejudices
this website overlaps with Stormfront in its readership
Well, Mr. Unz also republishes interesting material from Counterpunch, so it
is difficult to see how you get that impression.
I find the reference to US leftists joining the John Brown Gun Club etc.
interesting, since they generally are opposing the Second Amendment to the
US Constitution, and would certainly be repealing it if they had their way
plus the power to do it everywhere in that Union of States.
So, to me, it is an interesting article, and the stated aim of this site is
to present a collection of such.
Well, since I've just been called a "Marxist troll" and someone earlier
suggested I was a Jew, I think you can see why I might have concerns on this
site, and the Stormfront comparisons do not seem an exaggeration.
Franco was an able general and a clever political tactician, but that's
about it. His big mistake was to adopt Chicago-school neoliberalism,
auctioning off his country to (mostly) foreign investors. Sadly, everything
else he claimed to fight for–patriotism and Christianity – is now just as dead
in Spain as it is everywhere else in western Europe. The only part of his
legacy that yet lives is neoliberalism, which is a huge part of the reason
why Franco and the Falangistas have such an image problem in contemporary
Spain: people associated him with low wages and high rents. Moral of the
story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch neoliberalism
and embrace national socialism.
Antifa is composed of anti-white-Christian victim cult groups who the
federal government labels diversity. Victim cult civil rights are really
illicit federal entitlements that the federal government labels
inclusiveness.
If the US constitution were enforced as it is written, particularly the
9th and 10th amendments, Antifa would be suppressed by law. Antifa are not anarchist, they are totalitarian Bolsheviks trying to
impose victim cult supremacy onto the US. For example, feminist victim cultists who are supposedly oppressed by men
currently receive the following illicit federal entitlements:
I think that this article is
relevant, and like another commenter said, Stanley
Payne is a good source. His book "The Spanish Civil
War" looked at the whole conflict from start to finish
and comes to some interesting conclusions.
His view is that;
"Electoral democracy had obviously come to an end
well before the beginning of the civil war, which
may be seen as a consequence, certainly not the
cause, of this breakdown"
And he expanded on it;
"Conditions in Spain between February and July
1936, which eventually produced the civil war, were
unique in the history of 20th century European
States in peacetime, for nowhere else did a
parliamentary government preside over an equivalent
breakdown of law and order without the stress of
external crisis. The elections had been won, however
dubiously by an alliance of the moderate left and
the revolutionaries. Because the latter refused to
participate in any but a revolutionary regime, the
new government was formed by a minority coalition of
left Republicans, led by Azaña."
And he explains its disfunctionality;
"Even though the authority of this government
steadily declined, it would remain the key actor for
the next 5 months, with responsibility for guiding
the country and avoiding breakdown or civil war. It
failed to meet these responsibilities because its
priorities were, first, to maintain an exclusively
all leftist government that rejected any compromise
with the centre of moderate right and, second, to
avoid any break with the revolutionaries because
their support was necessary to remain in power. The
Republic's first historian, the noted Catalan
journalist Josep Pla, termed the strategy Azaña's
"ideological Kerenskyism" referring to the Russian
prime minister who fell to the Bolsheviks."
It's clear that the traditional right was on the
defensive.
P38. The mass illegal occupation of land in Badajoz
by 60.000 farm workers legalized by the government.
P39. Government inaction while Catholic schools were
closed, taken over or burned down.
All cheered on by the Communist press.
P39. Naming revolutionary militants as auxiliary
police.
P 43. "Azaña acknowledged an increase in violence
and disorder but glossed over it by arguing that
violence was 'deeply rooted in the Spanish character'
. as though the government had little or no
responsibility to enforce the law."
And the editor of Barcelona's "La Vanguardia" wrote
12th June 1936:
@Seamus Padraig
Franco was an able general and a clever political tactician, but that's
about it. His big mistake was to adopt Chicago-school neoliberalism,
auctioning off his country to (mostly) foreign investors. Sadly, everything
else he claimed to fight for--patriotism and Christianity--is now just as
dead in Spain as it is everywhere else in western Europe. The only part of
his legacy that yet lives is neoliberalism, which is a huge part of the
reason why Franco and the Falangistas have such an image problem in
contemporary Spain: people associated him with low wages and high rents.
Moral of the story: if the alt-right ever takes power, they should ditch
neoliberalism and embrace national socialism.
Pinochet did the same thing with the Chicago Boys, the result being that
Chilean society became uber-polarized between the have and have-nots. When
you look at the forerunner of the Reagan Revolution and neoliberalism, it
isn't Thatcher's Britain that was the prototype model-it was Pinochet's
Chile. Meanwhile, the protectionist, "selectively capitalist" economies of
the Asian Tigers, obeying the call of Friedrich List rather than Adam Smith,
boomed.
There's a reason that it is called
*classical liberal
economics*
. Actual conservatives-De Gaulle, Eisenhower, A.
Hamilton, Bismarck, Disraeli, Theodore Roosevelt-would have a hard time
recognizing what the modern GOP calls "conservative", in foreign policy
especially, but also in economics. Unfettered free markets and social
justice warrior types go hand and hand, when you think about it, as do
economic nationalism and protectionism. The Republican Party can't figure
this out: billionaires obey whatever lets them earn more money, thus they
will always be more loyal to their class than their nation, and now more
than ever, given this globalized world. Thus, the newer generation of
rightists would be very wise to develop a populist economic bent and
explicitly split with the free-market fetishizing crony capitalism of the
GOP-this could be the key factor that allows for more appeal among younger
Americans. But this has to be one of the leading features, not a side point.
One aside, not really related since I'm still thinking about Indonesia
from another thread: though Indonesia's Berkeley Mafia, responsible for that
country's economic miracle, is often compared to the Chicago Boys, the two
groups were really quite different. The Indonesians were a lot less
ideological-Ataturk, FDR, Japanese corporatism, Soviet Five Year Plans,
Thatcher, they cheerfully borrowed from them all, never mind consistency-and
Suharto kept them under tight control in a way Pinochet didn't. Then again,
Chile was (and is) a Western nation in every since of the word, with a long
history of democracy and reasonable development before 1973. Whereas 1960s
Indonesia was one of the poorest, most strife ridden societies on Earth,
ridden with any number of social/communal and economic ills, on the verge of
famine-and that was before the '65/'66 killings started.
I find the reference to US leftists joining the John Brown Gun Club
etc. interesting, since they generally are opposing the Second Amendment
to the US Constitution, and would certainly be repealing it if they had
their way plus the power to do it everywhere in that Union of States.
I think the leftists are pretty sure in their minds that the US
Constitution is wrong and only
"the right people"
should own guns.
They are pretty sure that they are
"the right people"
.
Like your namesake (hopefully a satire), they (Commies everywhere) all
have the same need for violence in their hearts for those who don't agree
with their plans to make everything fair.
@rw95
There is no golden rule in immigration policy and you .know that very well.
I reckon that you be a Hindu "American" who will flush the golden rule down
the toilet as soon as your racial kind have managed to vote The Historic
Native Born White American Working Class into a violently persecuted racial
minority in post-white toilet "American"
Why would you even ask me that
question since it's obvious that I am not a White Liberal
@Seraphim
"During the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939, and especially in the early
months of the conflict, individual clergymen were executed while entire
religious communities were persecuted, leading to a death toll of 13
bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarians, 2,364 monks and friars and
283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 clerical victims, as part of what is referred
to as Spain's Red Terror".
That illustrates the anti-christian animus of the 'Left' then and what's
'left' of it today. It is defining for the 'Left' in general.
The Spanish Civil War was a savage killing ground. The killings continued
after the Civil War was declared over. Consensus is that the right killed
more civilians than the left. However, the left's killing priests and
Barcelona anarchists (who were on the left) – recall Orwell's Homage to
Catalonia- indicates that both sides had bloody hands. And if the left had
won, considering the way that Stalin's people were already directing
murders, such as the murders of the anarchists in Barcelona, there is no
telling how many the left would have killed had it won. I doubt the number
would have been considered trivial.
I once read that a member of the
losing side said there was so much bitterness over the civil war that the
country needed the decades-long cooling off period that Franco's
dictatorship provided.
When I was in high school in the '60s, my Spanish class had a debate on
what would happen to Spain after Franco. As I did the research for my side-
debating that democracy would return- I learned more about the Spanish Civil
War and its aftermath than the average high schooler in the US. At the time
I had not yet read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.
@War for Blair Mountain
A pox on both your houses (you and Bridges). Neither of you get what's going
on. The current cold but getting hot war isn't about right or left. That's
just code.
Antifa are not anarchist, they are totalitarian Bolsheviks trying to
impose victim cult supremacy onto the US.
I like everything you say except this. We already have feminist
victim-cult supremacy which you then correctly list all the ways. They've
already won. Antifa is supposed to tamp down heresy. They can't be Bosheviks
because Bolsheviks weren't feminists. Modernists and libertines horrified
communists as bourgeois decadence.
This is an interesting point. The Democrats and feminists are now talking
"toxic masculinity." So, if they start looking like goons and thugs they get
very uncomfortable. Can they take that leap? Richard Spencer is beginning to
gain some sympathy from Washington Post readers after being driven out of a
gym. Feminist selling point from day one is how they are more peaceful than
men. Their preferred method is seduction, persuasion, human rights shaming –
like slandering white men who want to look out for their own interests as
Nazis, and so forth. They rely on a culture of spoiled, pampered babies
terrified of driving without seatbelts.
The 60s radicals actually were more masculine and chance-taking than
today's crop. And the Spanish Civil War was on another order of magnitude
more masculine.
@Gringo
The bitterness predated the war; Gil Robles, who is the person who would
know best, published a book long after titled "
No fue posible la paz
".
The left killed a lot more than just "priests and anarchists" - the
anarchists being (obviously and as you mention) leftists themselves and
among the worst killers, especially early in the war; I quite believe they
killed fewer people overall, but, of course, as you say, this is due to
their acquiring practically no new territory after July '36. And many of the
rightist killings were of course "revenge" (judicial or otherwise) for
leftist killings and other offences in newly reconquered territory. The
"member of the losing side" was probably right.
It should also be
remembered that from the liberation of France to about 1950 there was a
leftist guerilla waged in Spain with France as an external base that cost
another few thousand lives.
Radical Leftist (SJW) have caused much mischief in this nation for the last
fifty years. The major negative results are economic decline (mostly caused
by unserviceable debt in order to pay for the failed concept of having a
free lunch), and racial polarization with African Americans. This racial
balkanization has given cover for a violent crime problem where African
Americans kill more of their fellow national residents than any other group,
including terrorist (we suffer from more homicides every year than from
09/11 itself).
The SJW delights in this because they believe that African Americans (who
were ruined by New Left policies) will be their personal army against "White
America". Of course not being very street smart they naively neglect a few
facts, mainly that most:
- – African American criminals like easy targets that do not fight back;
- – African Americans, who are inclined toward anti white behavior, do not
make distinctions between whites, nor any other racial group (where liberals
mistakenly believe that they will be recognized as the "good white people");
- – African Americans have been so firmly inculcated with the concept of a
free lunch that they no longer know how to be productive, chronically
complaining about not getting enough (no matter how much we give), and as a
result are not generally self sufficient.
SJW themselves only use force when they have an advantage, and then cry
foul when it is used against them (they hate it when their opponents hit
back). Most are not hunters, were never in the military, and never had to
deal with growing up in a rough inner city neighborhood where violence is
almost routine (if somebody did not go to hospital, it wasn't real violence,
thus school yard fights don't count etc).
And finally, most SJW are antigun (or do not know how to handle a gun
effectively). To counteract the armed populace, the SJW believes that they
have the force of government behind them. That is true in regards to
politicians, and deep state bureaucrats; however, they are not exactly
looked upon fondly by most military personnel, urban city ghetto cops,
correction officers, and old school retired police officers. The only thing
that prevents their elimination is that the police (that they hate) are made
to protect them.
The only exception to this is that many
contemporary
federal leo,
suburban police, careerist military officers, and troopers, are true
believers in our current dysfunctional system (and attempt to ostracize the
ones who are not). Their leaders have degraded current policing into
glorified government revenue collectors (traffic ticket quotas and civil
forfeitures against legit working people) as opposed to deterring violent
crime. Unfortunately every time a suburban police dept hands out an
excessive amount of frivolous traffic tickets, it also reflects poorly on
the city cops who primarily deal with extreme urban ghetto violence (and
when city cops finally stand down, it is the city residents, including the
ghetto working poor, who suffer the most).
This economic decline, and social racial balkanization cannot endure
indefinitely without spilling over into some type of major disorder. Even
though the SJW fantasize about a civil war (race war), that will eliminate
their political opposition, it will prove to be their own undoing. The worst
thing that can happen to the SJW is a revolution that leads to a failed
state condition, without the rule of law, where they lose their protection.
Once this happens, the soft SJW will be eliminated by those who had enough
of there destructive social/economic meddling. Maybe then we can return to
normalcy (we did not ask for this; it is the SJW who pushed for this
outcome).
@ia
The IQ psychometric jibber jabber just sidetracks away from a laser beam
focus on the role of Asian "Americans" in the genocidal extermination of
Native Born White American Males in Engineering and Medicine .Trying doing
this to the Hindus in India there would be race riots
You kidding?
Do you really think that is what the conflict is over?
You really think the US is being destroyed by a bunch, unpleasant female
misfits, rather than by the the media, the pornographers, Hollywood, a
bought Congress, and the Council on Foreign Relations, all under the
direction of the Money Power intent on the destruction of the sovereign,
democratic nation state, the genocide of the European peoples, and the
institution of global governance by the Money Power?
@CanSpeccy
I think things got out of hand. It snowballed and got out of control in the
60s. But, yeah, we live in a thoroughly feminized society. Probably, the
ball got rolling in the 18th century with total dominance of other races,
which begat human rights by self-proclaimed "intellectuals" and status
marking aristos like Lord Sandwich, Captain Cook's patron, who "adopted" one
Omai, a south sea islander brought back as a kind of pet.
@War for Blair Mountain
Foreigners can't even own property in India. I will say this though, the
best dentist I've ever had was in New Delhi. He was an artist. Western
dentists rely way too much on machinery and technology.
@jilles dykstra
Jilles:
It is clear from the antics of Reality Winner TS/SCI that we can anticipate
the members of the current Armed Forces either to sit on their hands or
enthusiastically embrace the left multi-cultural establishment concerns.
True the USAF of which Ms Winner is still a member (reserve) is the most
ideologically indoctrinated of the Armed Forces but one can not expect any
help for patriot causes anywhere. During the 60′s the police forces were
disgusted with the left wing outrages. Not true today when the are armed
like Marines taking Faluja but led by politically savy chiefs and higher
level officials. Plus there is profitable loot in civil forfieture from
property owning people who might oppose the anti-fa media favorites. There
was some actual militia sentiment during the early 90′s in Montana and other
rural areas but the killing of Randy Weavers wife by the FBI at Ruby Ridge
and Janet Reno and ATFE incinerating a compound of bizarre religous outcasts
at Waco made it clear that it would result in fatal and sure vengence to
raise the specter of anything other than left-leaning dissent. The recent
trial and amazing acquital of the wild life refugee occupiers in Oregon is
just an fluke; there were two undercover FBI agent-provacatours for each
person arrested and one leader was killed in what if he had been a minority
been a world-class suspicious justified homicide. There is no potential
Francisco Franco in this country but plenty of Beria wannabes.9
@War for Blair Mountain
For some reason, Pinochet disapproved of being ambushed by commie scum armed
by Castro. He went after the commies in a way that they found very
unpleasant. They got a taste of their own medicine.
@nebulafox
"Free-market fetishizing crony capitalism of the GOP" makes no sense. Crony
capitalists do not want free markets. They want insider deals with their
government partners.
@nebulafox
Could not agree more! Protectionism, nationalism and a certain degree of
economic solidarity do indeed go together. Nationalism should be more than
just symbology, more than just a lot of flag-waving.
The Republican Party can't figure this out: billionaires obey whatever
lets them earn more money, thus they will always be more loyal to their
class than their nation, and now more than ever, given this globalized
world.
Well, they're
paid
not to figure it out. As Upton Sinclair once
said, "It is very difficult to get a man to see your point when his salary
depends upon
not
seeing it."
The intentions of the Left in America today are as homicidal as those of
their predecessors in revolutionary France or Russia. As Conrad pointed out
a century ago, all the rest is empty talk masking their lust for homicidal
vengeance against their betters. If this isn't clear from their apoplectic
calls to exterminate white men of European ancestry, nothing is.
@Father O'Hara
The old stock Anglo-Saxon/Scots-Irish (who are not the ethnic Irish)/Dutch
Americans who are actually descended from the founding fathers, and who are
the "posterity" mentioned in the Constitution.
On the bright side, Ireland
has become quite civilized in the last few decades. It shouldn't be too
rough an existence.
You better hope the multinational corporations don't leave, though.
Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism'
domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers. And I'm being
generous with the 1%. That glaring inaccuracy, (not to mention the Wingnut
demonification of the 'Other Side') completely invalidates what looks to be
an important observation. I believe that America's so called 'conservatives'
control all the houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet
we're on the cusp of a Left Wing Takover? Sheesh – take a tranquilizer.
Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism'
domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers.
That is the stupidest thing I've read on unz, yet. I mean, the power
couple Tiny Duck/Truth are just doing parody, but I'm STILL counting them to
give a new commenter a break. Peak Stupidity is not here yet, I guess.
I'm learning a lot from the back-and-forth arguments of some of the
bright people on here about the Spanish Civil War and will get a book out
from the library, as recommended. As far as American goes, I've been keeping
up with the political stuff for 40 years. I don't like this serious
hard-core stupidity displayed by you, RCon – it ruins the unz experience for
me. Stop, before you sprain a brain-muscle.
>"Well, they're paid not to figure it out. As Upton
Sinclair once said, "It is very difficult to get a man to see your point
when his salary depends upon not seeing it."
There certainly is a level of this-what else can explain someone like
Betsy DeVos being confirmed?-but on the other hand, you do see a fair amount
of true belief among the Rubio and Cruz types. Granted, if your formative
experiences were the hothouse years of GDP growth in the Reagan and Clinton
years and you are currently a member of the right-wing of the upper-middle
class (which boomed tremendously during the Obama years), it isn't too much
of a wonder why you'd favor free market ideology. Especially if you came
from a more humble background, if you aren't inquisitive enough (and most
people aren't), you'd think it always works that way. It worked out well for
you, if not necessarily your children.
But all that aside, the basic fact is that even Ronald Reagan wasn't "a
true conservative" in the sense that McConnell defines it, if you look at
his protectionist moves with Japanese auto importers and his refusal to
touch Social Security. (Not to mention that the Gipper would be appalled to
see the trigger-happy interventionism of the GOP being attributed to him,
given his own minimally (pinprick) interventionist policies in the 1980s.)
Unfortunately, because of Obama-era Democratic political ineptitude,
Republicans now dominate the whole government and are one state legislature
away from the 75% majority they need to amend the Constitution, so there is
little chance you'll see an objective evaluation of ideology among the GOP
Bonzen.
>In 200 Years Together, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described how Communist
revolutionaries in Tsarist Russia were supported by intellectual circles.
Their young leadership often came from the privileged classes, including a
significant number of Jews.
I fail to understand the controversy of this statement-Winston Churchill
was willing to state this basic reality as early as the early 1920s. It
isn't anti-Semitic to say so. Many Jews in the Russian Empire (generally
speaking, a highly brainy, intellectual bunch that you don't want to
alienate too much) became Bolsheviks because the Tsars were dumb enough to
oppress their people. In an era of nationalism which Jews were
understandably leery of given their historical experiences, among other
reasons, internationalistic left-wing movements generally appealed. (As did,
for some, Zionism. Less of a contradiction than you might think, even after
it became clear in the early '50s that the USSR had become quite
anti-Semitic and it became clear where Israel would have to go for the Cold
War. Until the demographic fueled Likud victories of 1977, Israel was
dominated by Ashkenazi Labour politics with heavy socialistic overtones.) If
I were your average middle class Jewish intellectual in Russia in 1905, I
probably would have been quite attracted to Bolshevism too.
Unfortunately for them, many of the Jewish Old Bolsheviks, however
intelligent they were, made the fatal mistake of underestimating a certain
Georgian former bandit advancing through the bureaucracy, dismissing him as
an uncultured lout who couldn't possibly fit into Lenin's shoes. They got
subsequently nailed disproportionately during the purges. The second
generation of leaders very seldom come from the revolutionaries, they come
from the practical men who followed. (Many Nazis would make a very similar
mistake in dismissing Martin Bormann-a similar personality type and even
something of an regime analogue ideologically. I suspect the two would have
gotten along smashingly over drinks-as just a crude, plodding backroom man
over a decade later.)
Stalin really changed the USSR into a far more traditionally Muscovite
place in terms of practical thinking -- "socialism in one country", et all. The
USSR under Stalin gave lip service to Leninist ideals and was smart enough
to see the use of having a literate populace, unlike the Tsars, but was
actually a quite socially conservative place in many regards.
At the height
of WWII, Stalin was smart enough to co-opt the Orthodox Church and Slavophilic nationalistic themes (far more emotionally resonant for average
Russians in the fight against the Teutons than Marx and Engels) into the
fight for the Motherland. Most significantly, the Cheka, initially dominated
by Jewish intellectuals focused on world revolution and liberation of the
workers, became the ethnic Russian dominated NKVD, which might have had a
different ideology, but had many (albeit they were
*far*
more vicious) psychological similarities to the Okhrana in practice. It also
became heavily anti-Semitic by the late 1940s, especially (again) within the
secret police.
>The Spanish Civil War was a savage killing ground.
Wasn't it? I know very little about Spain, but my brother spent a
semester there, and he told me that the Spanish Civil War was incredibly
vicious, even on civil war standards. Why was it, beyond the usual nasty
civil war reasons? Did Spain's pre-war social structure-I'd imagine the
heavy influence of the Catholic Church, etc-exacerbate it.
>I once read that a member of the losing side said there was so much
bitterness over the civil war that the country needed the decades-long
cooling off period that Franco's dictatorship provided.
Nasty, vicious civil wars tend to do that. Just look at what happened
after the Russian and Chinese Civil Wars. (Aside: our intervention in Russia
after WWI, which few people remember, might have helped preserve the
Bolshevik regime, far from replacing it as intended. They never learn.)
Speaking from a civil war that had the opposite result, you wear
Communist memorabilia in Little Saigons in the US at your peril. RVN flags
still regularly hang everywhere. In Vietnam itself, for older people, there
are still some tensions and visible differences between Northerners and
Southerners. Strangely enough, however, there is no animosity toward
Americans (or toward South Koreans, Australians, et all), who are viewed as
simply the last in a long line of foreign interventionists who strayed into
Vietnam.
Nowadays, the Vietnamese government is far more interested in
cultivating friendly relations with the US as a counterweight to China (the
age old nemesis) than revisiting the past: they are even discussing opening
up Cam Ranh Bay in the South to the US Navy. That's historical irony for
you. Granted, Vietnam is also extremely lucky in the sense that it is a much
younger country: 2/3s of the populace was born after 1975, and like their
Chinese counterparts, they are far more interested in enjoying an
increasingly prosperous life under a Western economic model than revisiting
the past.
The American military has its own commissars to ensure ideological
purity
That is also true for city police departments, and corporations. The main
goal of the Republican Party is to promote the vitality of Corporate
America. If appealing to political correctness can get corporations good MSM
press, to increased profits, they will promote that agenda even more
vigorously than the statist in our government (and academia). Thus, the Republican party will treat the rest of us as expendable to
that cause, and use war talk to distract us from our domestic problems of
bad economics and racial balkanization with the whitey hating Afro
Americans.
The corporatist Republicans have become just as much the enemy to the
people, that they are suppose to serve, as the statist Democrats. And that
is why they will standby and give tacit approval to the Democrats that try
to eliminate Trump. It is not so much Trump the man they fear as much as the
interest of the voters he represents.
Big govt socialism has joined forces with big business corporatism, and
globalism is their agenda. In return they will make us under employed
consumers buying globalized junk from Walmart, while they call us racist.
Allende won the election fair-and-square Kissinger went into violent temper
tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende.
Pinochet .very good relations Israel afterwards .
In 2017 Kissinger
advises the filthy cockroach Israeli Firster Donald Trump on how best to
torture Christian Russia over Crimea .
Look all the names on the Vietnam Memorial .Henery Kissinger's gift to
his adopted Nation.
America should have been friends with Castro's Cuba's if we had .Miami
would be 90-80 percent Native Born White American and English speaking in
2017 for Castro would have slaughtered this gangster fifth column in Cuba
which JFK allowed to demographically displace the Native Born White American
Majority in South Florida
The Cold War was the rock bottom ideological foundation for the passage
of the 1965 Nonwhite Legal Immigrant Increase Act = The passage of 1965 Native
Born White American Extermination Act..
If you are an Alt Righter and your view on Franco and Pinchet is the
received "wisdom" the canonical view of the Alt Right on this issue ..then
the Alt Right is a Cabal of little fools and twerps .
@War for Blair Mountain
Allende won the election fair-and-square...Kissinger went into violent
temper tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende.
Pinochet....very good relations Israel afterwards....
If you are an Alt Righter and your view on Franco and Pinchet is the
received "wisdom"...the canonical view of the Alt Right on this
issue.....then the Alt Right is a Cabal of little fools...and twerps....
Allende won the election fair-and-square Kissinger went into violent
temper tantrum..organized the coup that resulted in the murder of Allende.
Allende won the 1970 Presidential election with a plurality of 36.3% of the
vote. Allende never had the support of a majority of Chileans, which became
problematic for a President who was trying to institute revolutionary
change. Lacking a majority in the legislature, Allende resorted to
revolution by decree for much of his program. Believe it or not, revolution
by decree does not always go over very well in a democracy. It didn't in
Chile.
Your Yanqui-centric view of the world, where nothing occurs but at the
behest of the Yanqui Colossus, assumes that people outside the US are
puppets to be manipulated. On the contrary, they are independent agents.
José Piñera, the brother of a former President of Chile, has written a
good introduction to the Allende years.
How Allende Destroyed Democracy in Chile.
He also provides links to
other relevant documents. For example, consider the Resolution that the
Chamber of Deputies passed by a 63% majority vote three weeks before the
coup. Following is a summary of the Resolution, but there is also a link to
the full text of the Resolution in his article.
The Resolution, approved by almost two-thirds of the members (63.3
percent), accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete
violations of the Constitution and national laws. These violations
included: support of armed groups, illegal arrests, torture, muzzling the
press, manipulating education, not allowing people to leave the country,
confiscating private property, forming seditious organizations, and
usurping powers belonging to the Judiciary, Congress, and the Treasury.
The Resolution held that such acts were committed in a systematic manner,
with the aim of installing in Chile "a totalitarian system".
Allende considered the Resolution to be an invitation to a coup. From the
following summary of the Resolution, one can see how Allende came to that
conclusion.
d) a Plea to the military ministers (Article 15), who were also the
commanders-in-chief of the Army, Navy and Air Force, to put "an immediate
end" to these serious constitutional violations.
Pinochet didn't need a green light from Kissinger, as Pinochet already
had a green light from the Chamber of Deputies.
Most of the politicians who supported the coup, such as former President
Frei, and future President Aylwin, assumed that after several months in
power, the Armed Forces would call elections. Instead, they had to wait
sixteen years for elections. While Frei and Aylwin initially supported the
coup, the military regime's failure to call elections in a timely manner
caused them and many other politicians to turn against the military regime.
If one wants to condemn Pinochet, do so. But bear in mind that Pinochet
took power with considerable civilian support – as shown by the Resolution
passed with a 63% majority.
And no, Allende wasn't murdered.
Roberto Ampuero
, who fled to East Germany after the coup, married the
daughter of Castro's nomenklatura and moved to Cuba. Real Existing Socialism
showed Ampuero, a former member of Communist Youth, that there were serious
shortcomings in the Cuban model that Allende wanted to follow. Ampuero has
written a number of books chronicling his political change, such as his
memoir
Nuestros años verde olivo.
(Our olive green years.) He has
written a number of best-selling mysteries , only one of which has been
translated into English-
The Neruda Case.
"I'd argue a "National Divorce" would simply allow the Left a beachhead from
which eventually to secure the entire country. And it is unlikely even to
work. "
Not trusting the Left is not merely wise; it is necessary for
survival. I think a given that if there were a peaceful separation that the
Blue American Union would plan to attack the Red American States from the
get-go.
Even so, that is the best option. As long as the Red States elect leaders
who know the Left and so are prepared, the peaceful divorce can work.
@War for Blair Mountain
His election as Chile's president was as least as democratic as the
election of Richard Nixon as POTUS
Allende's election was kosher- the
legislature made the decision that the voters could not. In any event, my
reference to his 36.3% vote in the election was to point out that as a
minority president, he was going to have problems passing his agenda.
Allende never had the support of a majority of Chileans, which became
problematic for a President who was trying to institute revolutionary
change. Lacking a majority in the legislature, Allende resorted to
revolution by decree for much of his program.
Which he did -- though the legislature did vote for nationalizations of
copper and the banking system.
Allende played by the rules
What part of
accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete
violations of the Constitution and national laws.
do you not understand? Anyone who reads that and claims that "Allende
played by the rules" has extreme reading comprehension problems. Sixty three
percent of the Chamber of Deputies, who had a much better grasp of Chile's
law and Constitution than you or I do, stated that Allende did NOT play by
the rules.
If you want more detail, Piñera provides a link to
The Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973.
6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not
isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather
it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an
extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of
the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional
guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting
the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely
grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential
elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;
And you tell me that "Allende played by the rules." Not after he became
President, not by a long shot. While "Allende played by the rules" in
becoming President, his conduct as President showed that Allende was quite
willing to bypass the rules of Chilean law and the Constitution if doing so
would advance his revolutionary agenda. So said the Chamber of Deputies.
@Gringo
Your quoting the very coup plotters who were colluding with the
CIA ITT .Henry Kissinger-Nixon to violently to violently overthrow the
democratically elected Allende Goverment as an Oracle on Chilean
Democracy which ushered in decades .to this day of neoliberal economics and
"democracy". Pineras is a well paid member of the Cato Institute where he
writes papers calling for handing over the Native Born White American
Working Class's SS over to Wall Street.
There should have been street
executions of the likes of Pineras in Chile and the rest of the Chicago
School Boys along with Pinochet
There is most definitely a strong similarity between the coup against
Allende in 1973 and the coup against Trump in 2017 .a collusion of a
Treasonous Opposition party treasonous Press .and treasonous Intelligence
Agency and treasonous National Police
Pineras is the face of economic violence against the Chilean Working
Class and the Native Born White American Working Class .
Your quoting the very coup plotters who were colluding with the CIA
(1) If by "coup plotters" you mean the party apparatus that passed the
Resolution: While the Resolution indicated that there was wide support for a
coup, you have given no proof that those who passed the Resolution were
involved in "coup plotting." Support for a prospective coup was not the same
thing as actually engaging in "coup plotting." Rather, the Resolution gave
the military a green light.
If by "coup plotters" you are referring to José Piñera: in 1973 he was a
25-year-old grad student at Harvard, which is far down the totem pole for
"coup plotting." It is absurd to claim that a Harvard grad student, over
5,000 miles away from Chile at the time of the coup, was involved in "coup
plotting." You are telling me Pinochet was that much of a nebbish to see the
need to have the involvement in the coup of a 25-year-old grad student 5,000
miles away from Chile?
Moreover, you have given no proof whatsoever about "colluding with the
CIA" For anybody. Allende fans have a lot of of difficulty dealing with the
fact that a majority was opposed to Allende's agenda, and that there was
widespread support in Chile for the coup. Isabel Allende's paternal
grandfather supported the coup. Salvador Allende was her father's first
cousin- and a relative who interacted a lot with Isabel when she was a
child. That indicates how divided Chile was. Allende fans scream "CIA" in an
attempt to ignore all that.
(2) The Resolution points out Allende's systematic violations of Chilean
law and Constitution. Allende was an out-of-control executive. Being
President does not give one the right to operate carte blanche with regard
to the laws and Constitution of the country. Do you, like the Chavistas,
believe that being President gives one carte blanche with regard to the laws
and Constitution?
(3) While Allende was, as you point out,
democratically elected,
the
also
democratically elected
Chamber of Deputies passed the Resolution
by a strong 63% majority.
which ushered in decades .to this day of neoliberal economics and
"democracy"
From 1973 to 2015,
GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$)
increased 244%
in Chile, compared to an increase of 66% for Latin America. From 1973 to
2015, Chile also out-performed Latin America in improving health care. From
1973 to 2015, Chile's Life Expectancy went from 8th to 1st in Latin America.
From 1973 to 2015, Chile's Infant Mortality rate went from 9th to 2nd in
Latin America.
That indicates to me Chile has benefited from what you call "neoliberal
economics." For the last 27 years, Chile has been a democracy, without your
quotes.
And if you believe that the "democratically elected" Allende had
democracy as a long-term goal, then consider why the plan proposed in 1973
for changing education in Chile was based on East Germany's educational
system. So much democracy in East Germany, right?
For those who consider Allende to have been committed to democracy,
consider these Allende quotes from journalist Georgie Ann Geyer's
autobiography,
Buying the Night Flight.
[ page 97]
"Would a one-party state be good for Chile?" I asked him.
And he answered, thoughtfully but surely, "No no, not right away. It will
take a while." ..
"If you are elected, will there be elections again?" I asked him. He
paused. "You must understand," he said, carefully but revealingly, "that
by the next elections, everything will have changed."
The "democratically elected" Allende thought a one -party state would
eventually be good for Chile. How many people who are committed to democracy
think a one-party state will be good for a country?
You remind me of Democrats screaming Nazi at alt-right.
You'd better believe the alt- rt is part Nazi. [ and growing everyday!] The Jew media are like piranhas, they don't know when to quit.
White people are finished carrying all the dead wood in this nation.
We're not going to pay for our own replacements.
The quislings on Capitol Hill will continue to sow the whirlwind with
their vomitous allegations until this evil witches brew explodes and the
real Heroes emerge on der Tag.
@Stonehands
Blacks and Muslims voted about 94% Hillary. They both hate Jews. I think
about 64% of college-educated white women voted for Hillary. (I may be wrong
here but a lot voted for her and organized the women's looney bin march in
Washinton.) There's a lot of votes out there besides Jews.
Jews have been around for centuries and were kept at bay. Women and blacks
were under control for thousands of years. Do you seriously believe ridding
the West of Jews is going to stop women, queers and blacks from screeching
about their "rights?"
The 60s radicals actually were more masculine and chance-taking than
today's crop.
That is only slightly true they planted bombs while in hiding places,
ambushed from behind, and cried foul when violence was reciprocated against
them, during their demonstrations. This is the typical cowardly behavior
from the New Left SJW types. And one thing that they and radical afro
americans have in common is that they like an unfair advantage before
committing themselves to a fight; otherwise they run and hide behind the
skirts of the MSM and lawyers to protect them. What is true about the above
statement is that the current generation of SJW is even softer.
And the Spanish Civil War was on another order of magnitude more
masculine.
That is a more accurate observation. Unfortunately these hippie
degenerate flower children should have been eliminated back in the 1960s,
before they entered the reigns of management, of this nation, in the 1990s.
Since then they have become so entrenched that its almost impossible to
correct without a civil war, or a great awakening. Since this ilk is so
egocentric, we probably can discount the chance of a great awakening ( which
requires some introspection, and admission of ones own mistakes).
The biggest of this leftist hypocrisy is that if a civil war happens
(besides wanting afro americans to randomly kill whitey) they will want the
police/military to protect them from the rest of us. They do not even
understand that their demand for protection, from organizations that they
hate & tormented, may be withdrawn. And without said protection, their
leftist government will be nothing but a toothless tiger; and then the poor
SJW is going to actually have to fight it out for themselves against those
who will fight back unhindered and then its payback time.
@War for Blair Mountain
The revolt against Democratic Party genocidal race-replacement post-1965
Immigration Policy can not commence unless NBA-NFL Negro ball is turned off
forever.....and ever.......
How bad is the situation?...Google a photo of
any engineering department in India....then google a photo of engineering
departments in the US....you can't yell which country is which by a photo
comparison....But some imbeciles on the Alt Right...Richard Spencer and Paul
Kersey....want to have endless-mind-numbing-the-eyes-glaze-over-discussions
and debates about IQ test score psychometrics....thereby, forever and ever,
never getting around to exposing the role that Hindu "Americans" are playing
in the Democratic Party's open and deliberate policy of cleansing America of
Native Born White American Males in the Engineering fields....and some of
these Hindu "Americans" are members of a well known Hindu Fascist Party and
they are Trump voters and donors to Trump's 2016 POTUS campaign...
There is a difference: It is true that the New Left is using other races to
push their own leftist agenda against Whites. However, Asians and Hispanics
motivation is generally to try to improve their living conditions. In
contrast, many Afro Americans want to live perpetually off welfare, having
firmly inculcated the leftist free lunch agenda. Even if some particular
Asian or Hispanic hates whitey, most of them do not act it out, as opposed
to the fact that the majority of afro americans do hate whitey, and
violently act it out (or want to act it out).
The leftist have corrupted the afro americans mind so much that if there
were ever a civil war in this nation, it would also degenerate into a race
war with afro americans by default (way to go to the leftist who created
this mess the blood is clearly on your hands for this the rest of us are
held hostage to the necessity to protect ourselves, from this leftist social
experiment run wild but it is the leftist who created the conditions for
this to happen).
@Ace
For some reason, Pinochet disapproved of being ambushed by commie scum armed
by Castro. He went after the commies in a way that they found very
unpleasant. They got a taste of their own medicine.
God bless Pinochet.
God bless Pinochet.
Meh Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of
flag-waving.
@RCon
Here's the thing, history shows that currently 99% of 'terrorism'
domestically in the USA as well as abroad is by Right Wingers. And I'm being
generous with the 1%. That glaring inaccuracy, (not to mention the Wingnut
demonification of the 'Other Side') completely invalidates what looks to be
an important observation. I believe that America's so called 'conservatives'
control all the houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet
we're on the cusp of a Left Wing Takover? Sheesh - take a tranquilizer.
I believe that America's so called 'conservatives' control all the
houses of state as well as most of the Governorships, yet we're on the
cusp of a Left Wing Takover?
As the Trump interlude has amply demonstrated, formally occupying public
office, in and of itself, does not really correlate with meaningful
political control over policy.
@joef
There is a difference: It is true that the New Left is using other races to
push their own leftist agenda against Whites. However, Asians and Hispanics
motivation is generally to try to improve their living conditions. In
contrast, many Afro Americans want to live perpetually off welfare, having
firmly inculcated the leftist free lunch agenda. Even if some particular
Asian or Hispanic hates whitey, most of them do not act it out, as opposed
to the fact that the majority of afro americans do hate whitey, and
violently act it out (or want to act it out).
The leftist have corrupted the afro americans mind so much that if there
were ever a civil war in this nation, it would also degenerate into a race
war with afro americans by default (way to go to the leftist who created
this mess... the blood is clearly on your hands for this ... the rest of us
are held hostage to the necessity to protect ourselves, from this leftist
social experiment run wild ... but it is the leftist who created the
conditions for this to happen).
Asians "Americans" are actively imvolved in the destruction of thousands of
years of acquired Native Born White American
Tech Scientific Medical experience ..this is very much in the realm of
genocide
Your larger point is that you reduce America to an economic
proposition Nation a framework that justifies Comrade Gringo's Cuban
friends Pinochet enthusiasts .ethnically cleansing the Historic Native Born
White American Majority Working Class out of South Florida ..and it
justifies importing our first Hindu Brahman Princess POTUS Kamala Harris's
highly racialized-Hindu-Sihk Democratic Party Voting Bloc from India .
You know Kamala Harris right? the Senator from Greater
India .California . currently stomping on the balls of Jeff Sessions who is
a stand in for millions of Trump's White Male Trump Bro Voters
Meh ... Pinochet and Franco were just neoliberals given to fits of
flag-waving.
Bingo!!!! .you sir have nailed it .That's just another way of saying that
Franco and Pinochet were anti-Nationalist Traitors yet some of the little
twerps on the Alt Right are enamoured of these two filthy cockroaches
For
Comrade Gringo . such WONDERFULL Socialist Policies as Nationalization of
Industries when the appropriate circumstances arise for doing so . and
Social Security are a violation of the Fascist Rights "DIVINELY" inspired
interpretation of the Chilean and US Constitution therefore collude with
ITT Henry Kissinger and the CIA to destabilize Chilean Society
I wish Allende had been the thug that Gringo makes him out to be for then
Allende would have sent in Nationalist Death Squads to exterminate Pinochet
and his neo-liberal Chicago Milton Friedman little cockroach economist
Pineras in a soccer stadium It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean
Constitution that was the very thing that drove him to his Suicide when the
Pinochet Fascist Neo-Liberal Death Squads had him surrounded ..
Allende was a Nationalist who pursued a independent path of economic
development .and this was his great crime in the mind of War Criminal Henry
Kissinger .The Coup proceeded forward .and continues this day in
Chile .Chile is back on the neoliberal plantation .
@War for Blair Mountain
Asians "Americans" are actively imvolved in the destruction of thousands of
years of acquired Native Born White American
Tech...Scientific...Medical...experience.....this is very much in the realm
of genocide...
Your larger point is that you reduce America to an economic proposition
Nation ......a framework that justifies Comrade Gringo's Cuban
friends...Pinochet enthusiasts....ethnically cleansing the Historic Native
Born White American Majority Working Class out of South Florida.....and it
justifies importing our first Hindu Brahman Princess POTUS Kamala Harris's
highly racialized-Hindu-Sihk Democratic Party Voting Bloc from India....
You know Kamala Harris...right?...the Senator from Greater
India....California.... currently stomping on the balls of Jeff Sessions who
is a stand in for millions of Trump's White Male Trump Bro Voters...
A few differences:
Kamala Harris does not represent all of Greater India,
and to subscribe a collective guilt to Indians because of her is the same
thing that leftist try to do to Whites (eg the leftist collective guilt
nonsense such as white privilege) We hate it when the leftist and afros use
collective guilt against us Whites, so I suggest we don't use the same
techniques against others.
Now the fact of Asians acquiring knowledge is not equivalent to an act of
destruction & genocide. And their actual goal is to gain knowledge, not
destruction. As far as giving away the knowledge and work visas, you can
blame the White corporatist/globalist for that one in their traitorous
pursuit of cheap labor. Asians are not looking to hurt us, but are merely
pursuing economic opportunity in an employment rat race that the
corporatist/globalist created.
The same can be said of Hispanics from Central & South America, and
Mexico. Their main goal is trying to increase their economic prosperity (not
genocide); it is the corporatist/globalist/leftist who are letting them in
at our expense. Even the mainland hispanics who are heavily into the drug
trade are here to sell their product, not genocide (they are smart enough to
not want to commit genocide and decrease their own customer base). Even for
the ones who hate whitey, they love money more. The exception is inner city
Caribbean Hispanics, who over the generations, have incorporated many bad
afro american cultural attributes (and so have many White millennials).
Now living in urban BosWash area most of my life (Boston, Hartford,
Bronx, Brooklyn, Newark, Philly, Baltimore, DC is mostly a variation of the
same theme), I never raised up my guard walking through an Asian, or
Hispanic neighborhood, fearing a random attack involving deadly force, just
for being White. However, afro americans have been thoroughly inculcated
with leftist hating whitey ideology, and would randomly attack Whites just
for being White. And one of the primary afro american cultural traits is
hating whitey (which is why many of them are jonesing for a race war, even
if it means they will starve to death without us).
They are also inculcated with wanting something for nothing (free lunch),
and are more inclined to robbery to get "whats mines (sic)". They even hate
whitey so much, they will even robb their own white drug user customers,
against their own rational self interest (essentially robbing their own
customer base). I would never see that from Hispanic drug dealers, and in
fact afro american robbers were usually beaten to unconsciousness, if they
robbed a Hispanic drug dealers' customer (they wanted their white customers
do be returning customers). Hispanic drug dealers are about making money,
and would hurt/kill those who interfere with their drug trade, afros attack
because of racial animosity.
You make good points, but you also express theoretical ideology, that
somewhat opposes empirical experience (academic arguments vs the real
world).
All I did was document what Allende said and did. You have not refuted any
of the documented points I made about Allende. You used the word "thug" to
describe Allende, not I. Perhaps Allende wasn't the great guy you believed
him to be, after all.
It was Allende's commitment to the Chilean Constitution that was the
very thing that drove him to his Suicide
One minor point. In comment #69, you stated that Allende was murdered.
Now you state that Allende committed suicide. Can't keep your story
straight, can you?
Consider what the
Supreme Court of Chile
said about Allende's alleged "commitment to the
Chilean Constitution."
In 1973 the Supreme Court reproached him for assuming powers
belonging to that body, which resulted in an acrimonious exchange of
letters. Thus, on May 26, 1973, in protesting at the administration's
refusal to comply with a judicial decision, the Supreme Court addressed
the President in a unanimous decision: "This Supreme Court is obliged to
express to Your Excellency, once again, the illicit attitude of the
administrative authority in its illegal interference in judicial matters,
such as putting obstacles in the way of police compliance with court
orders in criminal cases; orders which, under the existing law of the
country, should be carried out by the police without obstacles of any
kind. All of this implies an open and willful disregard for judicial
verdicts, with complete ignorance of the confusion produced in the legal
order by such attitudes and omissions; as the court expressed to Your
Excellency in a previous dispatch, these attitudes also imply not just a
crisis in the rule of law, but also the imminent rupture of legality in
the Nation."
Allende's response indicated that he would follow the law and
Constitution when he damn well pleased.
In a time of revolution, political power has the right to decide,
at the end of the day, whether or not judicial decisions correspond with
the higher goals and historical necessities of social transformation,
which should take absolute precedence over any other consideration;
consequently, the Executive has the right to decide whether or not to
carry out the verdicts of the Judicial Branch."
Both the legislature and the Supreme Court considered Allende to have
violated the laws and Constitution of Chile. In this statement Allende
openly admitted that given the choice between advancing his agenda and
following the laws and Constitution of Chile, he would choose his agenda. So
much for Allende's alleged "commitment to the Chilean Constitution."
At the same time, the issue of the coup and the law was a bit like trying
to square a circle. How do you stop Allende from running roughshod over the
Constitution, but do so in a legal manner? Apparently many in Chile believed
that was not possible- thus the coup. Had Allende followed the laws and
Constitution of Chile- and he admitted would he do so only if doing so would
advance his agenda- the coup would not have occurred.
Part of the problem that Allende faced was that far leftists inside his
coalition and outside his coalition pushed Allende's program faster than was
politically prudent. The MIR- outside the Popular Unity coalition- pushed
illegal, armed takeovers of farm land in southern Chile. The consequence was
a collapse of agricultural production and an increasing use of scarce
foreign exchange on food imports. Not very prudent. While Allende may not
have been behind the land takeovers in the South, he recognized them as
fait accompli.
As things turned out, however, many of the president's difficulties
came as much from his own coalition as from his adversaries. A crucial
factor here was that while Allende and many of his followers sincerely
believed that socialism (albeit in a very comprehensive form) could be
built on the solid foundations of the Chilean democratic tradition, there
were many others among his followers who wished to go outside (or as they
would have said, "beyond") that tradition altogether. They were the heirs
of the heady radicalization of the 1960s. As Hugo Cancino has pointed
out, in a very detailed study of this period, "a wide section of the
Chilean Left . . . , from the mid-1960s, began to experience a process of
estrangement from Chilean reality, assuming the most orthodox, canonized,
formalized versions of Marxism-Leninism."2 As Cancino also wisely says,
the Chile of 1970 was not the Russia of 1917.
This contradiction between Allende's own objectives (the essence of the
"Chilean road to socialism" in its only meaningful sense) and the radical
demands of the militant "ultras" within (and alongside) the coalition,
who could mobilize significant rural and urban constituencies, was to
provoke many of the dilemmas of the UP government. Their revolutionary
aims were utopian and far-reaching.
There were even those among the
most militant who held the apocalyptic belief – such beliefs tend to
become self-fulfilling – that it would be better for the future of the
Left and of socialism if Allende "fell by an act of force," as some of
them told an American observer in 1971 – "we are trying to create a
situation of disorder and chaos to provoke the reactionaries into a coup
d'etat. ´ "3
We all know how that worked out. Interestingly enough, there were some
leftists in Spain in 1936 who had a similar point of view. Similar results,
also.
Ultimately, Syria is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia
intends to to keep it's port there and the US is simply virtue signalling
and trying to save face for jumping feet first into the Arab Spring without
thoroughly considering the task.
"... The United States has been using lies to go to war since 1846, when Americans who believed in manifest destiny sought to expand to the Pacific Ocean at the expense of Mexico, acquiring by force of arms California and what were to become the southwestern states. In 1898 the U.S. picked up the pieces of a dying Spanish Empire in a war that was driven by American imperialists and the yellow dog reporting of the Hearst Newspaper chain. And then came World War 1, World War 2, and Korea, all avoidable and all enabled by deliberate lying coming out of Washington. ..."
"... More recently, we have seen Vietnam with its Gulf of Tonkin fabrication, Granada and Panama with palpably ridiculous pretexts for war, Iraq with its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Afghanistan with its lies about bin Laden, Libya and its false claims about Gaddafi, and most recently Syria and Iran with allegations of an Iranian threat to the United States and lies about Syrian use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons. And if one adds in the warnings to Russia over Ukraine, a conflict generated by Washington when it brought about regime change in Kiev, you have a tissue of lies that span the globe and bring with them never-ending conflict to advance the American imperium. ..."
"... So lies go with the American Way of War, but the latest twist and turns in the Middle East are bizarre even by Washington's admittedly low standards of rectitude. ..."
"... The Saudis also have considerable blood on their hands by way of their genocidal assault on neighboring Yemen. In addition, the Saudi Royal House has served as the principal propagator of Wahhabism, the virulently fundamentalist version of Islam that provides a form of religious legitimacy to terror while also motivating many young Muslims to join radical groups. ..."
"... The falling out of two Gulf Arab regimes might be a matter of relatively little importance but for the unnecessary intervention of President Donald Trump in the quarrel. ..."
"... Trump's tweets might well be regarded as simply maladroit, driven by ignorance, but they could also provide a glimpse of a broader agenda. While in the Middle East, Trump was bombarded with anti-Iranian propaganda coming from both Israel and the Saudis. An escalation of hostilities with the intention of starting an actual war involving the United States to take down Iran is not unimaginable, particularly as the Israelis, who have already endorsed the Saudi moves, have been arguing that option and lying about the threat posed by Tehran for a number of years. ..."
Terrorism supporters in Washington and Riyadh close ranks against Qatar
The United States has been using lies to go to war since 1846, when Americans who believed
in manifest destiny sought to expand to the Pacific Ocean at the expense of Mexico, acquiring by
force of arms California and what were to become the southwestern states. In 1898 the U.S. picked
up the pieces of a dying Spanish Empire in a war that was driven by American imperialists and the
yellow dog reporting of the Hearst Newspaper chain. And then came World War 1, World War 2, and Korea,
all avoidable and all enabled by deliberate lying coming out of Washington.
More recently, we have seen Vietnam with its Gulf of Tonkin fabrication, Granada and Panama
with palpably ridiculous pretexts for war, Iraq with its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction,
Afghanistan with its lies about bin Laden, Libya and its false claims about Gaddafi, and most recently
Syria and Iran with allegations of an Iranian threat to the United States and lies about Syrian use
of barrel bombs and chemical weapons. And if one adds in the warnings to Russia over Ukraine, a conflict
generated by Washington when it brought about regime change in Kiev, you have a tissue of lies that
span the globe and bring with them never-ending conflict to advance the American imperium.
So lies go with the American Way of War, but the latest twist and turns in the Middle East
are bizarre even by Washington's admittedly low standards of rectitude. On the 5th of June,
Saudi Arabia led a gaggle of Arab and Muslim nations that included the United Arab Emirates, Egypt
and Bahrain to cut off all diplomatic, commercial and transport links with Qatar, effectively blockading
it. Qatar is currently isolated from its neighbors, subject to sanctions, and there have even been
Saudi threats of going to war against its tiny neighbor. Salman al-Ansari, the president of the Saudi
American Public Relation Affairs Committee, even tweeted: "To the emir of Qatar, regarding your alignment
with the extremist government of Iran and your abuse of the Custodian of the two sacred mosques,
I would like to remind you that Mohammed Morsi [of Egypt] did exactly the same and was then toppled
and imprisoned."
It is the second time the Saudis have moved against Qatar. Two years ago, there was a break in
diplomatic relations, but they were eventually restored. This time, the principal allegation being
directed against Qatar by Riyadh is that it supports terrorism. The terrorist groups that it allegedly
embraces are Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi's affiliation. Hezbollah and Hamas
are close to Iran which is perhaps the real reason for their being singled out as many would call
them resistance movements or even legitimate political parties rather than terrorists. And the Iran
connection is critical as Qatar has been under fire for allegedly saying nice things about trying
to respect and get along with Tehran, undoubtedly somewhat motivated by its joint exploitation with
Iran of a vast gas field in the Persian Gulf.
Qatar's ownership of al-Jazeera also has been a sore point with the Saudis and other
Gulf states as its reporting has often been critical of developments in the region, criticisms that
have often rankled the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptians. It has been accused of spreading propaganda
for "militant groups." One of the Saudi demands to permit Qatar to again become a "normal" Arab Gulf
state would be to close down the network.
The terrorism claims by the Saudis are, of course, hypocritical. Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are
well known as sponsors of Salafist terrorism, including the funding and arming of groups like ISIS
and the various al-Qaeda franchises, to include al-Nusra. Much of the money admittedly comes from
private individuals and is often channeled through Islamic charities, but both Qatar and Saudi Arabia
have been extremely lax in their enforcement of anti-terror and money laundering regulations. In
a 2009 State Department memo signed off on by Hillary Clinton it was
stated
that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist
groups worldwide." Qatar, meanwhile,
has been
described as a "permissive environment for terrorist financing."
The Saudis also have considerable blood on their hands by way of their genocidal assault on
neighboring Yemen. In addition, the Saudi Royal House has served as the principal propagator of Wahhabism,
the virulently fundamentalist version of Islam that provides a form of religious legitimacy to terror
while also motivating many young Muslims to join radical groups.
The falling out of two Gulf Arab regimes might be a matter of relatively little importance
but for the unnecessary intervention of President Donald Trump in the quarrel. He has taken
credit for the burgeoning conflict, implying that his recent visit to the region set the stage for
the ostracizing of Qatar. His twitter on the affair, posted on June 6 th , read ""So good
to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would
take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will
be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!" And he again came down on Qatar on June
9 th during a press conference.
Trump's tweets might well be regarded as simply maladroit, driven by ignorance, but they could
also provide a glimpse of a broader agenda. While in the Middle East, Trump was bombarded with anti-Iranian
propaganda coming from both Israel and the Saudis. An escalation of hostilities with the intention
of starting an actual war involving the United States to take down Iran is not unimaginable, particularly
as the Israelis,
who have already endorsed the Saudi moves, have been arguing that option and lying about the
threat posed by Tehran for a number of years.
Last week, when former FBI Director James Comey gave his long-awaited public testimony about his
apparently rough-and-tumble relationship with President Donald Trump, he painted a bleak picture.
The essence of Comey's testimony was that the president asked him to drop an investigation of retired
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn - Trump's former national security adviser - and then asked him to do so in
return for keeping his job as FBI director and then fired him for not obeying his order.
On the other hand, Comey confirmed that the president personally, as of the time of Comey's firing,
was not the target of any FBI criminal investigation. It was not clear from the Comey testimony whether
this exoneration was referring to salacious allegations made by a former British intelligence agent
of highly inappropriate and fiercely denied personal behavior a few years ago in a Moscow hotel room
or whether the exoneration was with respect to widely reported allegations that the 2016 Trump campaign
may have helped Russian intelligence agents in their efforts to manipulate the outcome of the presidential
election.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt the president is now a target of a federal investigation with
respect to his dealings with the then-FBI director. So, how could the tables have turned so quickly
on the president, and who turned them? Here is the back story.
Prior to the Watergate era of the mid-1970s, the generally accepted theory of management of the
executive branch of government was known as the unitary executive. This theory informs that the president
is the chief executive officer of the federal government and is the sole head of the executive branch.
He is also the only person in the executive branch who is accountable to the voters, as he, and he
alone (along with the vice president, who is largely a figurehead), has been elected by the voters.
As such, this unitary executive theory informs, everyone in the executive branch of the federal
government works at the pleasure of the president. Were this not the case, then vast areas of governance
could occur and vast governmental resources could be spent by people who are unaccountable to the
voters. And when the government is unaccountable to the voters, it lacks their consent. The consent
of the governed is the linchpin and bedrock of popular government in America.
There are, of course, today vast areas of government that are not responsive to the people and
that lack the consent of the governed. The administrative agencies that write, interpret and enforce
their own regulations and the deep state - the secret parts of the financial, intelligence and law
enforcement entities of the government that never change, operate below the radar screen and have
budgets that never see the light of day - defy the notion that the consent of the governed is the
sole legitimate basis for government in America.
Yet the FBI is not in the administrative state or the deep state. It is front and center as the
premier law enforcement agency of the United States government. It is far from perfect, and its leaders
are as fallible as the rest of us, but we have hired the folks who work there to enforce the federal
laws that implicate our freedoms and our safety. And we have hired the president to exercise his
discretion as to which laws shall be enforced and against whom.
Thus, under this theory, the president is constitutionally, legally, morally and ethically free
to direct any person in the executive branch as to how he wants that person to perform his or her
job. And the recipient of such direction is free to resign if the direction appears unlawful. That
is at least the theory of the unitary executive.
After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the independence
of the Department of Justice, including the FBI. It did so in reaction to Nixonian abuses. Thus,
the post-Watergate theory of the DOJ's role articulates that federal law enforcement is independent
from the president.
The Comey testimony revealed serious efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return
to the unitary executive. Comey revealed a DOJ under former Attorney General Loretta Lynch in lockstep
with the Obama White House and determined to exonerate Hillary Clinton in the espionage investigation
concerning her emails, no matter the evidence. He also revealed his own view that President Trump's
orders and quid pro quo offer with respect to Flynn were unlawful.
Where does this leave us today?
Today we have a White House under siege. The new DOJ criminal investigation that the president
is no doubt the subject of will attempt to discover whether he corruptly attempted to interfere with
the work of an independent FBI and whether he attempted to bribe its then-director. The White House
is also the subject of five congressional investigations involving the Russians and the 2016 election,
the firing of Director Comey, and the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from much of this.
And the investigation of Clinton is back from the grave for a third time to determine whether she
was exonerated because of a lack of evidence, a lack of will or an Obama political imperative.
These are perilous times for men and women of goodwill and intellectual honesty who are charged
with enforcing our laws and running the government. The government should not be terrifying. But
it must be fair and transparent. And it must always enjoy the consent of the governed. For without
that consent, it is illegitimate.
Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.
Feb 1, 2017 Secrets Of The FBI Finally Revealed and Leaked
In this video, we go over the latest FBI leak of thousands of documents to the intercept that
revealed their secret rule book and operations. We go over what was found in those documents and
the dangers of these powers that the FBI has.
So when exactly did any of us, or our representatives, vote on the income tax? Because I certainly
don't remember consenting to it.
Or twelve years of public schooling.
Or the TSA.
Or the entire history of Civil Wrongs laws.
Hyperventilating about the actions of one set of corrupt public officials vs. another is a
bit far down the list of non consent issues any of us should be concerned about.
"After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the
independence of the Department of Justice, including the FBI The Comey testimony revealed serious
efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return to the unitary executive."
The above quotes imply that these two policies are just "theories" of executive authority,
and not really enshrined in hard law. However, the article is never clear on whether or not that
is the case. If these are just two competing theories, and no law or clear court precedent exists,
then what is the legal basis for any investigation/lawsuit? Inquiring minds want to know .
"... Ulfkotte's book, Bought Journalists, is now available in English as Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News. ..."
"... Rod Wheeler, the investigator hired by Seth Rich's parents, did not retract any of his assertions. [He's convinced that Seth Rich contacted Wikileaks.] On the contrary, he was forced to "Cease and Desist" by a Democrat operative who now "advises" Rich's parents. Further, there was interference in Wheeler's investigation by another prominent Democrat (reputedly Donna Brazille). ..."
"... The Seth Rich murder not only throws a wrench in the "Russian hacking" story, it puts the spotlight back onto Clinton's malfeasance. I'd like to see this take center stage, and someone started a petition demanding an investigation. Seems like a good beginning. I urge everyone to sign and share widely. ..."
Dr Udo Ulfkotte, the former German newspaper editor whose bestselling book exposed how the
CIA controls German media, has been found dead. He was 56. Ulfkotte was an editor at Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the largest newspapers in Germany, when he published Bought Journalists,
the bestselling book that cost him his job and perhaps his life.
German media, who were banned from reporting on his work in recent years, are reporting he
died of "heart failure". Acknowledging that his life was under threat, Ulfkotte explained that
he was in a better position than most journalists to expose the truth because he didn't have any
children who could be threatened.
Speaking to the Russian newspaper Russian Insider, Ulkfotte said: "When I told the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung (Ulfkotte's newspaper) that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me
a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets – but
I don't mind. You see, I don't have children to take care of."
His fears for a war in Europe, lead him to his decision to tell the truth about corporate media
being controlled by intelligence services on behalf of the financial class.
"I've been a journalist for about 25 years, and I've been educated to lie, to betray, and not
to tell the truth to the public," Ulfkotte told Russia Today. "I was supported by the Central
Intelligence Agency, the CIA Why? Because I am pro-American."
"The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to
Russia. This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say it is not right what
I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia."
Ulfkotte said most corporate media journalists in the United States and Europe are "so-called
non-official cover," meaning that they work for an intelligence agency. "I think it is especially
the case with British journalists, because they have a much closer relationship. It is especially
the case with Israeli journalists. Of course with French journalists. It is the case for Australians,
[with] journalists from New Zealand, from Taiwan, well, there is many countries," he said.
Ulfkotte's book Bought Journalists became a bestseller in Germany but, in a bizarre twist which
Ulfkotte says characterizes the disconnect caused by CIA control of the western media, the book
cannot be reported on by the German press.
Ulfkotte said: "No German mainstream journalist is allowed to report about [my] book. Otherwise
he or she will be sacked. So we have a bestseller now that no German journalist is allowed to
write or talk about."
Among the stories Ulfkotte says he was ordered by the CIA to plant in his newspaper was a fake
story that Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi was building poison gas factories in 2011.
"The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to
Russia," he told RT.
"This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say it is not right what I
have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not
right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the
people not only in Germany, all over Europe. I am very fearful of a new war in Europe, and I
don't like to have this situation again, because war is never coming from itself, there is always
people who push for war, and this is not only politicians, it is journalists too. We have betrayed
our readers, just to push for war. I don't want this anymore; I'm fed up with this propaganda.
We live in a banana republic, and not in a democratic country where we have press freedom."
That the CIA is a criminal organization, it's all over town except for the corrupt political
class and their groveling media class. That the American people still believe in these institutions
is due to the massive propaganda they are exposed day and night. Even the still highly regarded
FBI are using a double standard approach when it comes to Hillary Clinton and other corrupt liberal
democrats.
The American people should just turn off CNN and the other media outlets that give them their
daily brainwashing. They would have just a more comfortable life. Professor Cohen is right saying
that these criminal institutions such as the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies are
creating their own "security threat."
If Donald Trump wants to evade a fabricated impeachment he has to bomb the shit out of the
Syrian and the Iran government and get tough with Vladimir Putin, the only rational actor in this
whole made up the affair. Finally, the rampant Russia-phobia has one aim: to attack Russia. Putin
was the guy who ended the plundering of Russia by the US under the boozer Yeltzin.
The last public hearing showed that the senators are insane and full of American nationalism
and exceptionalism about their democracy that has nothing to do with the concept the Founding
Fathers set up a long time ago. That there are still a lot of Beltway political criminals to believe
in a winnable nuclear war with Russia can scare one to death.
@Carlton Meyer TY for posting this Carlton! Ulfkotte's book, Bought Journalists, is now
available in English as Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News.
As for Roth's hope that Americans will wake up before it's too late . when I talk to my friends
(the regular kind, not the Unz variety) they don't seem to hear me. They need some kind of shock,
and something simple to grasp. [Unpacking Syria is way too frightening for most, let alone Israel's
role in destabilizing the ME.] What about the murder of Seth Rich?
Rod Wheeler, the investigator hired by Seth Rich's parents, did not retract any of his
assertions. [He's convinced that Seth Rich contacted Wikileaks.] On the contrary, he was forced
to "Cease and Desist" by a Democrat operative who now "advises" Rich's parents. Further, there
was interference in Wheeler's investigation by another prominent Democrat (reputedly Donna Brazille).
Among the stories Ulfkotte says he was ordered by the CIA to plant in his newspaper was
a fake story that Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi was building poison gas factories in 2011.
That was a tall story back then, as is anything involving Ghadaffi, basically.
An actor well-used as bogeyman whenever the sheeple needed to be distracted a bit.
This is actually very well explained in this little movie:
"... Read Starikov... All these recent weapons deals, and many before is nothing more than what's called Reparations and Contributions. ..."
"... It's an old deal http://defense-update.com/20141222_qatari_patriots.html ..."
"... You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol. ..."
Pentagon Agrees To Sell $12 Billion In F-15s To Qatar Tyler Durden Jun 14, 2017
4:35 PM 0 SHARES Remember when Trump called on
Qatar to stop funding terrorism, claiming credit for and endorsing the decision of Gulf nations to
isolate their small neighbor (where the most important US airbase in the middle east is located),even
as US Cabinet officials said their blockade is hurting the campaign against ISIS. You should: it
took place just 5 days ago.
"We had a decision to make," Trump said, describing conversations with Saudi Arabia and other
Gulf countries. "Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have
to stop the funding of terrorism." Also last week, Trump triumphantly announced on twitter that "during
my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology.
Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!"
Well, Qatar funding terrorism apparently is not a problem when it comes to Qatar funding the US
military industrial complex , because just two weeks after Trump signed a record, $110 billion weapons
deal with Saudi Arabia, moments ago
Bloomberg reported that Qatar will also buy up to 36 F-15 jets from the Pentagon for $12 billion
.... even as a political crisis in the Gulf leaves the Middle East nation isolated by its neighbors
and criticized by President Donald Trump for supporting terrorism, according to three people with
knowledge of the accord.
According to the Pentagon, the sale will give Qatar a "state of the art" capability, not to mention
the illusion that it can defend itself in a war with Saudi Arabia.
If nothing else, Uncle Sam sure is an equal-opportunity arms dealer, and best of all, with the
new fighter planes, Qatar will be able to at least put on a token fight when Saudi Arabia invades
in hopes of sending the price of oil surging now that every other "strategy" has failed.
To be sure, the sale comes at an opportune time: just days after Qatar put its military on the
highest state of alert,
and scrambled its tanks . All 16 of them. Maybe the world's wealthiest nation realized it's time
beef up its defensive capabilities?
Qatar's defense minister will meet with Pentagon chief Jim Mattis on Wednesday to seal the agreement,
Bloomberg reported citing people who spoke on condition of anonymity because the sale hasn't been
announced. Last year, congress approved the sale of up to 72 F-15s in an agreement valued at as much
as $21 billion but that deal took place before the recent political crisis in the region.
Oh c'mon y'all. This is nothing new. These are the same synchophants that (somehow, oops!)
created ISIS and then go in and bomb them. WTF did you expect? That they'd actually do what they
say?
A big shout out to Boeing Military. Hookers and blow tonight in the exec suite. BTW these planes
aren't sitting in inventory ready to be delivered. So any conflict in the next few years won't
have to worry about these planes.
That is unless the US or some other buyer agrees to step aside and allow Qatar to take their
place at the end of the assembly line.
That should about wrap it up on who is in charge of the Deep state. Backing both sides of a
potential conflict and making sure everyone has enough arms to blow each to smitherines. Sounds
like the old Red Shield tricks are still the best ones. Long live central bankers, after they
have been thrown into a burning pit of sulfer.
Absolutely. But, oh, these damned Iranians. They simply resisted the USA's boy Saddam and fought
back.
That failure to comply with OUR orders sealed his faith.
Weapons of mass destruction. Well, we delivered them to him. chemical weapons to kill all the
Iranians. So we KNEW they must have been there. We just didn't expect that he really used them
all up against Iran and later on (the remaining few) against the curds. What a bastard. After
all that WE did for Saddam, he didn't deliver. Fuck him.
Speaking of non-delivery, why has our newest boy, Poroshenko, not yet taken Moscow? So, fuck
him, too! And fuck the EU.
And speaking of that, where is Monica, when one needs her? And let's have some Pizza...
That could happen and did on many F-18 sales where we in the US in effect packed the parts
into glorified Heath kits and sent them to the buying countries who did their own labor. Also
sent them the testing equipment and every other thing they needed so all we got were a few spare
piece parts at a slightly lower price. The labor went to the purchasing country.
That right there is some wizard-level salesmanship. And I can assure you that these weapons
systems have "ALL" of the capabilities of the ones in our US arsenal, hahaha. And furthermore,
they cannot be messed with by remote control by the boys at the Pentagon, just in case things
get a little messy or embarassing. Nosiree. What you see is what you get. Yes, Lord.
Looks like Trump is just selling to whoever want to buy. What the hell, why not, he's shown
himself to be a sell out. Might as well be the best damn arms dealer you can buy.
You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of
these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter
every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol.
I personally think the F15s will utterly destroy the f35s because all they have to do to down
an f35 is keep it flying, it will eventual blow up on its own.
Well like I said before, let the body count be super high... and let all the fucking crazy
suicide bombers head back home to kill themselves.
As Bernie, the man behind the man that shot up a bunch of congressmen said... Its going to
be HUUUUUGE... the war thats coming that is... I wonder how many oil tankers will be sunk?
Almost all the world's economic and political problems revolve around the hegemony of a global
corporate cartel, which is headquartered in the US because this is where their dominant military
force resides. The US Constitution is therefore the "kingpin" of an all-inclusive global financial
empire. These fictitious entities now own the USA and command its military infrastructure by virtue
of the Federal Reserve Corporation, regulatory capture, MSM propaganda, and congressional lobbying.
The Founders had to fight a bloody Revolutionary War to win our right to incorporate as a nation
– the USA. But then, for whatever reason, our Founders granted the greediest businessmen among
them unrestricted corporate charters with enough potential capital & power to compete with the
individual states, smaller sovereign nations, and eventually to buy out the USA itself. The only
way The People can regain our sovereignty as a constitutional republic now is to severely curtail
the privileges of any corporation doing business here. To remain sovereign we have to stop granting
corporate charters to just any "suit" that comes along without fulfilling a defined social value
in return. The "Divine Right Of Kings" should not apply to fictitious entities just because they
are "Too Big To Fail". We can't afford to privatize our Treasury to transnational banks anymore.
Government must be held responsible only to the electorate, not fictitious entities; and banks
must be held responsible to the government if we are ever to restore sanity, much less prosperity,
to the world.
It was a loophole in our Constitution that allowed corporate charters to be so easily obtained
that a swamp of corruption inevitably flooded our entire economic system. It is a swamp that can't
be drained at this point because the Constitution doesn't provide a drain. This 28 th
amendment is intended to install that drain so Congress can pull the plug ASAP. As a matter
of political practicality we must rely on the Article 5 option to do this, for which the electorate
will need overwhelming consensus beforehand. Seriously; an Article 5 Constitutional Convention
is rapidly becoming our only sensible option.
This is what I think it will take to save the world; and nobody gets hurt: 28 th
Amendment
28 th Amendment:
Corporations are not persons in any sense of the word and shall be granted only those rights
and privileges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall
provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their
purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to:
1, prohibitions against any corporation; a, owning another corporation; b, becoming economically
indispensable or monopolistic; or c, otherwise distorting the general economy;
2, prohibitions against any form of interference in the affairs of; a, government, b, education,
c, news media; or d, healthcare, and
3, provisions for; a, the auditing of standardized, current, and transparent account books;
b, the establishment of state and municipal banking; and c, civil and criminal penalties to be
suffered by corporate executives for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.
"... Meanwhile, at home, despite all that wealth, despite billionaires galore , including the one running for president, despite the transnational corporate heaven inhabited by Google and Facebook and Apple and the rest of the crew, parts of this country and its infrastructure were starting to feel distinctly (to use a word from another universe) Third Worldish. He sensed that, too. He regularly said things like this: "We spent six trillion dollars in the Middle East, we got nothing And we have an obsolete plane system. We have obsolete airports. We have obsolete trains. We have bad roads. Airports." And this : "Our airports are like from a third-world country." And on the nation's crumbling infrastructure , he couldn't have been more on the mark. ..."
"... Admittedly, that other superpower of the Cold War era, the Soviet Union, imploded in 1991, which was about the fastest way imaginable to leave the global stage. Still, despite the " evil empire " talk of that era, the USSR was always the secondary, the weaker of the two superpowers. It was never Rome, or Spain, or Great Britain. ..."
"... It wasn't he, after all, who gave the U.S. heartland an increasingly Third World feel. It wasn't he who spent those trillions of dollars so disastrously on invasions and occupations, dead-end wars, drone strikes and special ops raids, reconstruction and deconstruction in a never-ending war on terror that today looks more like a war for the spread of terror. It wasn't he who created the growing inequality gap in this country or produced all those billionaires amid a population that increasingly felt left in the lurch. It wasn't he who hiked college tuitions or increased the debt levels of the young or set roads and bridges to crumbling and created the conditions for Third World-style airports. ..."
"... If both the American global and domestic systems hadn't been rotting out before Donald Trump arrived on the scene, that "again" of his wouldn't have worked. Thought of another way, when the U.S. was truly at the height of its economic clout and power, American leaders felt no need to speak incessantly of how "indispensable" or "exceptional" the country was. It seemed too self-evident to mention. Someday, some historian may use those very words in the mouths of American presidents and other politicians (and their claims , for instance, that the U.S. military was "the finest fighting force that the world has ever known") as a set of increasingly defensive markers for measuring the decline of American power. ..."
"... Mr. Trump made it clear that he loves the military and loves his generals. Oh well. When it takes up over 60% of the annual budget, what's not to love. The 1% won't be homeless or hungry, the tax code for which they lobbied is in place and secure. Individuals below them continue to take on debt. The nation continues to do the same. I sincerely desire that this country does go to hell in a handbasket even though I love the country. ..."
"... I don't like Capitalist Imperialists. I don't like usury. Like all "Great World Powers before them, the U.S. is set up to fail. As someone wrote here, before. Most Generals don't have good records. My guess is that same lacking may be pervasive. Every government program has failed. Every war they have created for the U.S. to fight in has failed. Every "reform " has been another fleecing of the worker. In recent decades, the money Exchangers have been given free license to steal from those who gambled for a better life. They would put the great J.P. Morgan to shame with their computer-generated theft schemes. "Now you see it. Now, you dont!" That will become America, land that I love. ..."
In its own inside-out, upside-down way, it's almost wondrous to behold. As befits our president's
wildest dreams, it may even prove to be a record for the ages, one for the history books. He was,
after all, the candidate who sensed it first. When those he was running against, like the
rest of Washington's politicians, were still insisting that the United States remained at the
top of its game, not an - but the - "
indispensable nation ," the only truly "
exceptional
" one on the face of the Earth, he said nothing of the sort. He campaigned on America's decline,
on this country's increasing lack of exceptionality, its potential dispensability. He ran on the
single word "again" - as in "make America great again " - because (the implication was) it
just isn't anymore. And he swore that he and he alone was the best shot Americans, or at least non-immigrant
white Americans, had at ever seeing the best of days again.
In that sense, he was our
first declinist candidate for president and if that didn't tell you something during the election
season, it should have. No question about it, he hit a chord, rang a bell, because out in the heartland
it was possible to sense a deepening reality that wasn't evident in Washington. The wealthiest country
on the planet, the most militarily powerful in the history of well, anybody, anywhere, anytime (or
so we were repeatedly told )
couldn't win a war, not even with the investment of
trillions of taxpayer
dollars, couldn't do anything but spread chaos by force of arms.
Meanwhile, at home, despite all that wealth, despite
billionaires galore , including the one running for president, despite the transnational corporate
heaven inhabited by Google and Facebook and Apple and the rest of the crew, parts of this country
and its infrastructure were starting to feel distinctly (to use a word from another universe) Third
Worldish. He sensed that, too. He regularly
said things like this: "We spent six trillion dollars in the Middle East, we got nothing And
we have an obsolete plane system. We have obsolete airports. We have obsolete trains. We have bad
roads. Airports." And
this
: "Our airports are like from a third-world country." And on the nation's
crumbling infrastructure
, he couldn't have been more on the mark.
In parts of the U.S., white working-class and
middle-class Americans could sense that the future was no longer theirs, that their children
would not have a shot at what they had had, that they themselves increasingly didn't have a shot
at what they had had. The American Dream seemed to be gaining an almost nightmarish sheen, given
that the real value of the average wage of a worker
hadn't
increased since the 1970s; that the
cost of a college education had gone through the roof and the educational
debt burden for children with dreams of getting ahead was now staggering; that unions were
cratering ; that income inequality was at a
historic high ; and well, you know the story, really you do. In essence, for them the famed
American Dream seemed ever more like someone else's trademarked property.
Indispensable? Exceptional? This country? Not anymore. Not as they were experiencing it.
And because of that, Donald Trump won the lottery. He answered the
$64,000 question . (If you're not of a certain age, Google it, but believe me it's a reference
in our president's memory book.) He entered the Oval Office with
almost 50% of the vote and a fervent base of support for his promised program of doing it all
over again,
1950s-style .
It had been one hell of a pitch from the businessman billionaire. He had promised a future of
stratospheric
terrificness , of greatness on an historic scale. He promised to keep the evil ones - the
rapists , job thieves, and terrorists - away, to
wall them out or
toss them out or
ban them from ever traveling here. He also promised to set incredible records, as only a mega-businessman
like him could conceivably do, the sort of all-American records this country hadn't seen in a long,
long time.
And early as it is in the Trump era, it seems as if, on one score at least, he could deliver something
for the record books going back to the times when those recording the acts of rulers were still scratching
them out in
clay or wax . At this point, there's at least a chance that Donald Trump might preside over the
most precipitous decline of a truly dominant power in history, one only recently considered at the
height of its glory. It could prove to be a fall for the ages. Admittedly, that other superpower
of the Cold War era, the Soviet Union, imploded in 1991, which was about the fastest way imaginable
to leave the global stage. Still, despite the "
evil empire " talk of that era, the USSR was always the secondary, the weaker of the two superpowers.
It was never Rome, or Spain, or Great Britain.
When it comes to the United States, we're talking about a country that not so long ago saw itself
as the only great power left on planet Earth, "the lone superpower." It was the one still standing,
triumphant, at the end of a history of great power rivalry that went back to a time when the wooden
warships of various European states first broke out into a larger world and began to conquer it.
It stood by itself at, as its proponents liked to claim at the time, the
end of history .
Applying Hard Power to a Failing World
....While, in the Trump era, a drive to cut domestic spending of every sort is evident,
more money is still slated to go to the military, already funded at levels not reached by
combinations of other major powers.
Given the last 15 years of
history , it's not hard to imagine what's likely to result from the further elevation of military
power: disaster. This is especially true because Donald Trump has appointed to key positions in his
administration a
crew of generals who spent the last decade and a half fighting America's catastrophic wars across
the Greater Middle East. They are not only notoriously incapable of thinking outside the box about
the application of military power, but faced with the crisis of failed wars and
failing states , of spreading terror movements and a growing
refugee crisis across that crucial region, they can evidently only imagine one solution to just
about any problem: more of the same. More
troops , more
mini-surges , more military trainers and advisers, more
air strikes , more
drone strikes more .
After a decade and a half of such thinking we already know perfectly well where this ends - in
further failure, more chaos and suffering, but above all in an inability of the U.S. to effectively
apply its hard power anywhere in any way that doesn't make matters worse. Since, in addition, the
Trump administration is filled with Iranophobes, including a president who has only recently fused
himself to the Saudi royal family in an attempt to further isolate and undermine Iran, the possibility
that a military-first version of American foreign policy will spread further is only
growing .
... ... ...
The First American Laster?
If a Trump presidency achieves a record for the ages when it comes to the precipitous decline
of the American global system, little as The Donald ever cares to share credit for anything, he will
undoubtedly have to share it for such an achievement. It's true that kings, emperors, and autocrats,
the top dogs of any moment, prefer to take all the credit for the "records" set in their time. When
we look back, however, it's likely that President Trump will be seen as having given a tottering
system that necessary push. It will undoubtedly be clear enough by then that the U.S., seemingly
at the height of any power's power in 1991 when the Soviet Union disappeared, began heading for the
exits soon thereafter, still enwreathed in self-congratulation and triumphalism.
Had this not been so, Donald Trump would never have won the 2016 election. It wasn't he, after
all, who gave the U.S. heartland an increasingly Third World feel. It wasn't he who spent those trillions
of dollars so disastrously on invasions and occupations, dead-end wars, drone strikes and special
ops raids, reconstruction and
deconstruction in a never-ending war on terror that today looks more like a war for the spread
of terror. It wasn't he who created the growing inequality gap in this country or produced all those
billionaires amid a population that increasingly felt left in the lurch. It wasn't he who hiked college
tuitions or increased the debt levels of the young or set roads and bridges to crumbling and created
the conditions for Third World-style airports.
If both the American global and domestic systems hadn't been rotting out before Donald Trump
arrived on the scene, that "again" of his wouldn't have worked. Thought of another way, when the
U.S. was truly at the height of its economic clout and power, American leaders felt no need to speak
incessantly of how "indispensable" or "exceptional" the country was. It seemed too self-evident to
mention. Someday, some historian may use those very words in the mouths of American presidents and
other politicians (and their claims
, for instance, that the U.S. military was "the finest fighting force that the world has ever
known") as a set of increasingly defensive markers for measuring the decline of American power.
So here's the question: When the Trump years (months?) come to an end, will the U.S. be not the
planet's most exceptional land, but a pariah nation? Will that "again" still be the story of the
year, the decade, the century? Will the last American Firster turn out to have been the first American
Laster? Will it truly be one for the record books?
This lunatic keeps on coming up with new insanities. He appears to be saying that because Trump
is withdrawing from the globalist agenda, that makes him a bad guy, and furthermore, it puts America
last. Because we will lose our "soft" influence, Trump is making America "last."
Well, I swan! In all my days, I never thought I would live to see a liberal spout such utter,
misguided horseshit.
Tom, the lunatic, seems to believe that if America has no soft power anymore, then all they
will have is hard power. Message to Tom: what has been being used in the World by the United States
in the past 15 years, hell, in the past 65 years? Ever hear of world events, Tom? This guy. He's
so old he's sounding like John McCain. Are you ok, buddy? Maybe you should get an MRI to check
for brain rot.
I'll save you the funds. You do have brain rot. And this stuff you write is rotten to the core.
I can't quite see how getting out of shitty trade deals and cutting back on that giant wad
of goo that is NATO is going to wreck America? Increasing military spending seems stupid to me
but it may be a stop gap to maintain the economy during the transition to a Public Works phase
which the Country badly needs. As to the Wall and immigration in general how can anyone not see
the turmoil it is causing pretty well everywhere else and not want to keep that from coming here?
In an era of decreasing employment we do not need more of the great unwashed? If we must import
help let's choose the ones with the brains and some cash! The last twenty years of globalism have
taken a big bite out of everyone but the very rich, enough of this crap, make the changes or there
will be a civil war! Naa, I think the author is dead wrong.
One third of the population, the "experts" estimate, are mentally ill. I don't have an incling
whether the restless expat lives in a glass house or not but maturity or, rather, immaturity OR
tequila may be in his soupy criticism. Throwing stones in the form of personal insult toward a
writer? I don't know. Thanks to Mr. Unz, many writers get a shot at making their point, as I have
read, here. I would disagree with restless and Tom, but not completely.
Mr. Trump made it clear that he loves the military and loves his generals. Oh well. When
it takes up over 60% of the annual budget, what's not to love. The 1% won't be homeless or hungry,
the tax code for which they lobbied is in place and secure. Individuals below them continue to
take on debt. The nation continues to do the same. I sincerely desire that this country does go
to hell in a handbasket even though I love the country.
I don't like Capitalist Imperialists. I don't like usury. Like all "Great World Powers
before them, the U.S. is set up to fail. As someone wrote here, before. Most Generals don't have
good records. My guess is that same lacking may be pervasive. Every government program has failed.
Every war they have created for the U.S. to fight in has failed. Every "reform " has been another
fleecing of the worker. In recent decades, the money Exchangers have been given free license to
steal from those who gambled for a better life. They would put the great J.P. Morgan to shame
with their computer-generated theft schemes. "Now you see it. Now, you dont!" That will become
America, land that I love.
"... As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt." ..."
"... Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded. ..."
"... Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth defending? ..."
"... since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of the leakers. ..."
"... Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person. ..."
"... It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible. ..."
"... His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs is not warranted. ..."
"... "Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance. ..."
"... I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that. ..."
"... So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him. ..."
"... His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e. end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal. ..."
"... Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary. Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty. ..."
"... The people of the Swamp are hostage to the Devil. ..."
President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration
is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.
We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the
sovereign and its own restoration.
Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces
are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart.
A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.
That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret.
Few deny it.
Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under
oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president.
Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president.
Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation,
that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking
of the DNC.
Comey's deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president.
And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey's friend
and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.
As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that
look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have
been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt."
Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia
after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State
Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for
sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives
at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected,
collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.
"It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week
of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal
policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.
Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government,
and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks
are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.
The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real
criminal "collusion" in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy
a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.
Yet another example is the unfolding "unmasking" scandal.
While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump
associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.
On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump
associates unmasked. Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies
of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack
Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president. The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn's
conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia
for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on
Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.
... ... ...
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Comey wanted Mueller in there, and Mueller is doing what he will, because Mueller is there
primarily to PROTECT Obama and Clinton and their vast left wing cabal, just like Comey did before
he was canned.
Mucking up Trump's life and those of Trump's people in the process is merely a sweet bonus.
Not to mention the excellent distraction/diversion value that provides.
Trump needs to go after the deep state and quit attempting to mollify it with actions such
as support of Saudi terrorists. It is a fight to the finish and if the power structure wins, our
days are numbered.
Most people in this country don't know what is going on and wouldn't care if they did. Trump
and this country are experiencing democracy's waning time in action. And it ain't pretty.
Trump is surrounded by judases. His own hand-picked people are not loyal to him, including
his vice-president. Trump hasn't shown any cojones that every one expected from him. One little
crisis and he has surrendered himself to the neocons. Session is a weak man. He couldn't even
stand up to his old buddies who showed no respect to a fellow senator.
We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of
the sovereign and its own restoration.
We already have a civil war. It may be bloodless but it is a civil war which it appears Trump
is destined to lose unless he shows some courage and brains to turn the scale against the insurgents.
He should start by firing Rosenstein (sp) and Mueller and dare the congress to impeach him.
He should take his case to the voters that had elected him and urge them to call on congress,
especially, the Republicans to support him. He should go back to his pre-election agenda and start
pulling the US out of the Middle East and make friendly overtures towards Russia. He also needs
to rein in the intelligence commmunity and tell them to get off the Iran case and do some real
intelligence work. Stop supporting all insurgents in the Middle East no matter what their affiliation.
From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive order
allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request it.
I can't believe he hasn't done this.
Finally, I thought by now he should have learned that he cannot govern through the Tweeter.
He needs to get off of that binge and get serious. So far he does not have any coherent domestic
or foreign policy. Bowing down to Israel and Saudi Arabia and do their bidding does not make a
foreign policy. One is threatening him while the other is bribing him, neither is a true friend
to the US. Except for the supreme court justice position, Trump has nothing to show for his domestic
achievements. Republicans need to act as the majority party. They cannot let the Democrats run
the congressional business.
Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It
was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to
destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth
defending?
Moreover Donald Trump is hellbent on using the Native Born White Working Class Teeanage Male
Population as canon fodder Greater Israel in the Middle East. Trump is a vile, evil creature who
will rot in hell for an eternity for doing this .
" will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace."
As if they're going to stop there. Those breaches of WH security a while back were the Deep
State's warning shot, and you see how quickly Trump about-faced in the ME.
From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive
order allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request
it. I can't believe he hasn't done this.
I agree, but I believe he's kept the EO in place since it's easier to find the leakers this
way. But since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly
or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of
the leakers.
Trump better cancel the EO if and when the find all the leakers and if he doesn't he'll unmask
himself as a fraud who's smitten by absolute government power. Defense of civil liberties has
never been his strong suit.
Kill Deep State by shutting off funding. Unclassify the whole intelligence budget. Then shut
it down. Move the civilian intelligence functions to the military. Return FBI to a domestic agency
covering federal crimes, not working closely with CIA or accompanying U.S. military in raids in
Afghanistan and Middle East.
Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up
and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and
mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting
zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for
a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person.
I think the nation could come unglued, but I don't see the military joining in, at least not
on the side of nationalists against the government. The average American soldier seems to be a
PC brainwashed, globalist stooge, and the officer class appears to be made up of weak-minded careerists
and yes men, little different from the soldiers, so I don't see much help coming from them. Add
that to the fact that the government is trying to pass laws giving amnesty to illegals who will
join a U.S. military that already has many soldiers of foreign birth or roots, and I don't see
much help coming from the military, which seems to become more distant from the population as
time goes by.
It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and
hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible.
He should have confronted those in his party that are out to destroy him Why did he waste his
time interviewing loser like Romney? Was he serious about their possible usefulness? Trump doesn't
seem to know that he is under assault. He needs to start some serious ass kicking.
His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing
to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence
is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs
is not warranted.
"Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance.
@MEexpert If you think he has "nothing to show for his domestic achievements" and that he
"does not have any coherent domestic or foreign policy" it suggests to me that you're either a
Democratic troll, not paying attention, or just plain ignorant.
One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion
over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth
over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be recognized
as his signature achievement.
You can easily find the myriad of other domestic and foreign policy achievements if you really
want. But its clear you really don't want.
I find it amusing that you would side with the enemy in recommending he stop tweeting. How
many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the Presidency,
BECAUSE he couldn't stop tweeting. They ALL were just as wrong as you are now.
And of course your guessing or assuming when you really don't know war is hell so they say,
and we are masters at starting them killing little children, what was the count in Iraq 100,000
500,000 thousand and the masters said it was worth it the problem with the American people including
you is its alright as long as it happens in some other country but cry a river at the thoughts
it could happen here, now who's the idiot?
How many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the
Presidency,
I don't know, because I never said it. LOL. I voted for Trump. So much for your insight into
my motives.
One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion
over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth
over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be
recognized as his signature achievement.
All this is in the future and unknown. $100 trillions sounds great but who came up with this
outrageous number. I am talking about now. If he ends the war, the payoff will be immediate with
savings in material cost and lives.
I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't
think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest
US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that.
So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary
to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him.
His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch
investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e.
end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave
up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal.
Trump created a vacuum by failing to keep his promises, and his enemies are now using it as
a snipers nest.
@Travis That's the essence of it. We can't and won't have a civil war because a civil war
requires at least two sides to fight it, and both political parties, all of the institutions,
government apparatus, mass media, corporations, and the ruling tribe are on the same side.
Opposing this is (or was) maybe half the population on a very good day, but what we're seeing
is that even half of the population is pretty much powerless in the face of the Empire's juggernaut.
In my view, the Republicans deserve our special ire because they were in a position to help
bring about real change, with this singular opportunity, and they wanted no part of it. Fortunately,
their party is toast and we'll enjoy a cataclysm before anyone takes their place. The Democrats?
We knew what to expect from them, and still do. They are wrecking this nation systematically.
Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even
a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary.
Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty.
@MEexpert " neither is a true friend to the US" You imply that the evil empire can actually
be a true friend to others which would be laughable, right? If not, how do you expect others
to be just that??
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....
"... So watch the lies if you want to know when the next war is coming. If the House of Saud, the Israelis and Donald Trump are talking trash and seem to agree about something then it is time to head for the bomb shelter. Will it be Iran or an escalating catastrophe in Syria? Anything is possible. ..."
"... The Israeli and Saudi lobbies, and associated actors, seem to have had some success. I still don't see it going much further, Trump instinctively doesn't want another Iraq on his watch whatever the likes of Mattis etc. wish to engineer. ..."
"... what's been mostly forgotten is that Hearst and his newspapers largely opposed Washington's entry into both WWI and WWII. ' Citizen Kane' and the endless array of Hearst-bashing references ignore this neglected yet significant fact. ..."
"... All in accord with the rest of the Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iran which Netanyahu's Israel AIPAC agent Kushner has duped the Saudis into supporting as well because of their Sunni vs Shia hatred of Iran: ..."
"... Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms purchases and other ways of sending their billions our way. Money talks. The other stuff is just window dressing. We're their hired help and security guard. ..."
Mind you, we have these obese brainless stooges who would dance to any tune as long as they're
assured they'll still be in power comes tomorrow. Now the assurance has also been approved by
the masters, DJT is in deeply with the Ziocons . When our masters accomplish this mission, than
we'll again be led to the next one. The Ayrabs don't seem to get it yet. They'll all end up in
the Zionists slaughterhouse
It seems Gen. Clark was right, just a little diversion here.
What will become of the average Goy?
Let me commend Mr. Giraldi for another excellent contribution. The Saudi regime is the chief enemy
of civilization and those backing it are tarred with the same brush. It is disappointing to see
Trump taken in by the deep state love of the Saudi barbarians.
So watch the lies if you want to know when the next war is coming. If the House of Saud,
the Israelis and Donald Trump are talking trash and seem to agree about something then it is
time to head for the bomb shelter. Will it be Iran or an escalating catastrophe in Syria? Anything
is possible.
A fine article, and the answer to all this surely lies with the US.
If Trump had pulled out of Middle East conflicts (as he was elected to do), all this talk would
be much less dangerous. Israel and Saudi Arabia aren't going to attack Iran on their own.
The Israeli and Saudi lobbies, and associated actors, seem to have had some success. I still don't
see it going much further, Trump instinctively doesn't want another Iraq on his watch whatever
the likes of Mattis etc. wish to engineer.
what's been mostly forgotten is that Hearst and his newspapers largely
opposed
Washington's
entry into both WWI and WWII. '
Citizen Kane' and the endless array of Hearst-bashing references
ignore this neglected yet significant fact.
Very, very true, and funny how that works. In the same way Charles Lindbergh, because of his
opposition to entering WW2, has been egregiously smeared as an "anti-Semite" and the charge still
sticks to this day.
Thanks for pointing that out, and informing us about Poo-litzer.
All in accord with the rest of the Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iran which Netanyahu's
Israel AIPAC agent Kushner has duped the Saudis into supporting as well because of their Sunni
vs Shia hatred of Iran:
Let me commend Mr. Giraldi for another excellent contribution. The Saudi regime is the chief enemy
of civilization and those backing it are tarred with the same brush. It is disappointing to see
Trump taken in by the deep state love of the Saudi barbarians.
"The Saudi regime is the chief enemy of civilization "
Looks like you have a problem with reading
comprehension.
Read the first two paragraphs again, and then review who is indeed the Chief enemy of civilisation.
George Washington must be rolling in his grave for pandering US politicians who ignore his Farewell
Address warning at following URL:
http://astandforjustice.org/#washington
Just noticed that the youtube for Michael Scheuer's CNN interview with Smerconish about ISIS didn't
go through in prior post! Following one should:
@Mark Green
Well I have to thank you for prompting me to read up on Joseph Pulitzer"s remarkable career but
I can't commend your attention to detail or recommend you as a source of accurate information
to others.
There is a slight problem about your blaming him for being (before WW1) "pro US intervention
in Europe" having "demonized Imperial Germany" and then that he "helped sanitize American efforts
(pre WW2) to help the British".
*He died in 1911*
.
Interesting to compare Pulitzer's great career with that of another Central European Jew who
immigrated with no English but built a popular newspaper empire. Both served in the armed forces
of their adopted country. The other is that appalling rogue Robert Maxwell.
See following article from Jewish Forward publication on how Netanyahu's Israel 1st AIPAC
agent Kushner (who arranged Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia and Israel) has brought other Jewish
AIPAC Israel 1sters into the White House:
@Wizard of Oz
Idiot! The lie that OBL was involved in any way in 9/11 for just one. The lie that he was killed
in the Delta 6 raid in Pakistan is another.
Speaking of lies, war and the media, let us not forget the blatant lying about Stalin's crimes
by Walter Duranty published in the New York Times for which the scumbag was awarded a prize by
Pulitzer, another Red Millionaire.
It took the Times around half a century to begin to publicly
admit to its callous malfeasance, yet apparently..
The
Pulitzer board has twice declined to withdraw the award,
most recently in November
2003, finding "no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception" in the 1931 reporting
that won the prize (see Pulitzer Board statement), and The Times does not have the award in
its possession.
- New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty
Also note that in the statement, they deceitfully attempt to shift the responsibility for dirtball
reporting on the effects of Soviet censorship, which though real, is no excuse for their mendacity.
Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms purchases
and other ways of sending their billions our way. Money talks. The other stuff is just window
dressing. We're their hired help and security guard.
Seriously 1846 is not relevant .and anyone who thinks it is in the context of opposing
the ongoing war against Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran is not really a serious anti-war
critic ..You need to deal with the fact that many of us here on Unz Review do not suffer from
even a speck of White Guilt .even Old Noam Chomsky likes his precious Israel Jew only .which is
the reason why Noam and Norman Finklestien are opposed to the right of return for Palestinians
So be a good phenomenologist and remember that context is everything
Jun 6, 2017 America's Reign of Terror: A Nation Reaps What It Sows
The U.S. government is creating
the terror. It is, in fact, the source of the terror. Just think about it for a minute: almost
every tyranny being perpetrated against the citizenry-purportedly to keep us safe and the nation
secure-has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or another by the U.S.
government.
I can tell you from first hand personal family reasons that the filthy cockroach Donald
Trump has very big plans to slaughter the Working Class Native Born White Christian American Male
Teenager Population by using them as canon fodder for Greater Israel in a war with Shia Muslim
Iran. This is Donald Trump's MAGA JOBS PROGRAM .post-Gruman Corp MAGA rally a year ago
Trump is as much of a filthy repellent cockroach as Hillary and Bill Clinton.
It looks like Trump's red hat MAGA HAT WEARING CHICKENHAWK WARHAWK JOCKSNIFFING White Male
Voting Bloc Cucks and they are most definitely CUCKS who deserve to have the shit beat out of
them .have given Trump a blank check to 1)bomb Hezzbollah in Syria and 2)bomb Shia Muslim Iran
for Greater Israel
Donald Trump+Hillary Clinton=a "cute" post-nuclear WW3 cockroach breeding pair .a 13 billion
year COCKROACH RIECH!!!
@NoseytheDuke
I never doubted that you think that but PG is a comparatively serious person and I wondered what
he would say, choosing his words as carefully as he quite often seems to. Come to think of it
I think he's been caught out being a bit careless on some of his other details this time.
And
what's your version of sbat happened at Abbotabad and why?
The jooies and their kept eunuchs in wash dc are complaining their precious US (((holocaust)))
museum is only being funded with 54 million in American taxpayer funds. This underfunding is very
serious as they will have to close the lampshade wing and the soap bar exhibition. Contact your
congressional whore immediately and complain ..
@War for Blair Mountain
Hey Happy Guy ,
Whats the problem. Giraldi is always whining about America and praising Iran. Why should he stay
here . If he likes Iran so much he should move there . Do you think Giraldi should disclose if
he has received money from any Iranian entity ??
@NoseytheDuke
Presumably you think ObL died much earlier than the Navy Seals raid. But why would Obama go along
with the charade? No doubt you would say he was looking for political advantage domestically –
to which of course I answer that he wouldn't be so dumb as to believe that no one would blow the
whistle.
Let's move on to whete you say the extremely long and detailed account of ObL's death
in Wikipedia is wrong and say why. In particular, how come Al Qaeda and other Muslim organisations
announced his death and threatened revenge?
@anon
Well now first of all, .I want to greet you with a great big FUCK OFF!!! .Dearest Ivanka
The
target of Phil's venom are the Jewish Neocons .and non-Jewish Neocons:The homo- cannibal General
Mattis .Hannibal Lectre look-a-like General McMaster in-a-flava-bean-salad with the homo General
Mattis .and the filthy cockroach breeding pair Donald Trump and his cockroach husband Hillary
Clinton .and the SATANIST!!! that own and run the Military Industrial Complex ..the treasonous
SATANIC NON-AMERICAN-ANTI-AMERICAN CABAL spawned in Satan's personal toilet bowl in rancid rotting
corpse strewn HELL!!
@Mark Green
True, thank you and depressing, but hope springs eternal and I'm hoping Trump still has some independent
thought and some patriotism and patriots behind him!
Mexico had more right to Tejas than the Zionist gangsters have to Palestine.
Neither group has any claim to the land. Mexico invited the Americans into Texas, primarily
because Mexico could not deal with the Comanche who lived in Texas and raided both Texas and Mexico.
Mexico then lost the war against the Texans and lost all claim to Texas.
Much of the SW, though claimed by Mexico was controlled by either the Comanche or the Apache.
Those tribes might have a claim, but Mexico has none.
@AmericaFirstNow
See following article from Jewish Forward publication on how Netanyahu's Israel 1st AIPAC agent
Kushner (who arranged Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia and Israel) has brought other Jewish AIPAC
Israel 1sters into the White House:
http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-donald-trump-as-assistant/
The infestations continue.
Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms
purchases and other ways of sending their billions our way. Money talks. The other stuff is
just window dressing. We're their hired help and security guard.
@jacques sheete
Mexico lost Texas because Santa Anna made himself a dictator and caused revolts all around Mexico.
The Texans just happened to win. Mexico was trying to raise an army to retake it when the US annexed
Texas.
Mexico made the stupid mistakes. Mexico knew the US wanted Texas and California. Mexico
had rejected offers to buy them. Mexico should have done everything it could to avoid giving the
US a chance to grab them.
"In a 2009 State Department memo signed off on by Hillary Clinton it was stated that "donors in
Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.""
Why the hell would use anything Clinton said or did to advocate a position?
@Chris Mallory
You are correct that the Mexicans invited Americans into Texas, (talk about the negative effects
of encouraging immigration), and Mexico may never have had much claim to the land,
but they
still have a more legitimate claim than the Zionist gangsters have on Palestine.
In
fact, if there were no oil in the region, I suspect the Zionists would all move to NYC!
Note that the Saudi Royals 1) have totally accepted Israel, 2) have absolutely nothing negative
to say (or do) regarding Israel's subjugation of Palestine, 3) are hostile to Iran (like Israel),
and 4) are willing also to accept the Kingdoms's second-tier military status vis-a-vis Israel.
For these reasons, the authoritarian, undemocratic, and terror-funding Royal Saudi family
is totally 'in sync' with Zio-Washington. The Saudis are even safe from any potential US-Israeli
destabilization campaign. (At least for now.)
to understand the Saudi leadership, you need only see how they got along with Iran during the
reign of the Shah; a Zio/Anglo quisling installed after the CIA putsch that removed the legitimate,
democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.
Under the quisling puppet Shah, Iran was terrorized by a CIA/Mossad run organization notorious
for its torture methods.
Time magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution"
which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[24] The Federation of
American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political
prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963–79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods
included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water
into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails."[25]
it was during this reign of Zionist and Anglo terror that the corrupt House of Saud got along
wonderfully with the Shah's Zio-Iran. Here you see the king of Saudi Arabia dancing for the amusement
of the treacherous little Shah:
- who exhorted the rulers of Saudi Arabia to embrace the cultural and spiritual sewage of the
Zio-West thus:
"Please, my brother, modernize. Open up your country. Make the schools mixed women and men.
Let women wear miniskirts. Have discos. Be modern. Otherwise I cannot guarantee you will stay
on your throne."[15]
as long as Iran was under the thrall of the Fiend, the Saudi were their bestest buddies ever.
They were also bestest buddies with Israel and England and the ZUSA.
so much treachery and evil and oppression and murder and torture.. it makes the head spin.
anyways, what do you expect from a
fiend,
I guess
so today the Saudis are still under the thrall of the same Fiend, but Iran is not. Hence Saudi
Arabia assassinates Shia clerics it doesn't like, and Iran gets blamed for human rights violations.
The lies and mendacity and treachery are nearly beyond comprehension. The Saudis toss their
fellow Arabs in Palestine under the Zionist bus, and fund and foment ISIS to crucify Christians
and burn men alive. The stark divisions between good and evil (if there are such concepts) could
hardly be more glaring.
and yet the Zio-fiend has Trump making nice with the murderous, terrorist-funding Saudis, while
saber rattling at the peaceful and civilized Iran.
@MarkinLA
Yeah, I know all about it. At one time I was a great admirer of the Texians, and the constitution
of the Texas Republic, and used to love to visit the Alamo before it was done over. Anyway my
main point was
not
about Mexico or Texas.
BTW, as you probably know, Davey Crockett was
one of the original "Love it or Leave It" dudes and left the US in disgust (in 1836) with craven,
dishonest, politicians after his stints in government including Congress and headed for Texas
telling the story that if not re-elected, his constituents could go to Hell, and [he] would go
to Texas.
Rotten politicians are an original and permanent feature of American political life, it seems.
I believe Qatar has the highest per capita income (for its citizens) in the world. That can never
sit well with the House of Saud.
The British Empire made the House of Saud what it is, and the American successors of the Brits
intend to keep the con game going. Wise and decent US leadership would recognize the Saudis as
the worst of the Middle East and act accordingly. But the English all but created them, and we
follow the English lead. And ow that the Israelis dearly love the Saudis, we can expect to see
US-Israeli-Saudi mischief all over the region.
PG is a true and a great patriot. those who have the chutzpa to tell PG, "move to Iran", my message
to you is, move to Saudi Arabia or to Israel. But then again, most likely you're already there.
On the plus side, the personal attacks on PG are great. It means he must be doing something
right.
Not to mention, when comments take the form of personal attacks instead of arguing the principle
tenants of the article, it means the other side doesn't have a defensible point of view. Which
only means PG's assertions are correct and indisputable.
I see some red-blooded Americans arguing about Texas, not being in Mexico. These people are
forgetting the best form of patriotism is true understanding of our history as a nation. Ignorance
and waiving a flag alone is not patriotism. Patriotism is defending the foundation and principles
of our nation. Mainly, our constitution. Texas or the number of stars on our flag, etc. does not
make America. America for me is the principles our founding father put forth. Which was formulated
in a document far advanced for its time (even for today) in the form of our constitution.
Anything outside of the framework of our nation, I consider false or anger-patriotism. There
is a reason why media has played a role in shaping the wars of choice mentioned in this article.
Because faced with true facts against the framework of our constitution, those wars are not in
the best interests of the public or the country.
Now that's something. 13 billion years of COCKROACH REICK PESTILENCE!
Who or what is underlying
the common denominator that makes it compelling to work so hard to bring about the ideal conditions
for the Cockroach infestation that will grow after the Nuclear conflagration that is the fruit
of Heimy science? (Poison/long half-lives.)
Or, what is the correlation in DNA of the Cockroach and some humanoids? Ever think of that?
God (as he may be understood,) or not, has infinity to work it out, and one lead that should
be gone into could be where (from a concept called "Morphic Resonance" which posits that within
DNA code there is much dormant potentiality, that also can be shown to tie together various diverse
life forms.
INO's, some of the humans are in effect analogous to David Icke's ideas about lizards, or
like the Bodysnatchers concept of long ago SF movies, (the one with Kevin McCarthy in BW was
good).
The proclivities of, or the fruits of, the Drift The point aimed at by some people!
They seem to want to reset Earth to another beginning. A CockRoach Reich!
@iveritas
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Here is an outstanding essay that distinguishes between
patriotism and nationalism. The author is none other than Joe Sobran.
@Sam McGowan
I don't think a shooting war on Iran is imminent; it's enough to yap about imagined threats to
keep people glued to the media and thinking we need the protection of crazies. No threat, less
"need" for politicians and the military.
The more threats, the more dollars for the nut jobs
amongst us.
Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy
it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is
to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with
an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
H.L. Mencken, In Defense of Women (1918)
Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor produced a timeline for dire Israeli and US
predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning ~38 years ago.
A timeline of warnings since 1979. Breathless warnings that the Islamic Republic will soon
be at the brink of nuclear capability have been made for decades. Here is a chronicle of predictions.
@iveritas
PG is a true and a great patriot. those who have the chutzpa to tell PG, "move to Iran", my message
to you is, move to Saudi Arabia or to Israel. But then again, most likely you're already there.
On the plus side, the personal attacks on PG are great. It means he must be doing something
right.
Not to mention, when comments take the form of personal attacks instead of arguing the principle
tenants of the article, it means the other side doesn't have a defensible point of view. Which
only means PG's assertions are correct and indisputable.
I see some red-blooded Americans arguing about Texas, not being in Mexico. These people are
forgetting the best form of patriotism is true understanding of our history as a nation. Ignorance
and waiving a flag alone is not patriotism. Patriotism is defending the foundation and principles
of our nation. Mainly, our constitution. Texas or the number of stars on our flag, etc. does not
make America. America for me is the principles our founding father put forth. Which was formulated
in a document far advanced for its time (even for today) in the form of our constitution.
Anything outside of the framework of our nation, I consider false or anger-patriotism. There
is a reason why media has played a role in shaping the wars of choice mentioned in this article.
Because faced with true facts against the framework of our constitution, those wars are not in
the best interests of the public or the country.
Thank you, PG!
Patriotism is defending the foundation and principles of our nation. Mainly, our constitution.
You sound like a highly respectable sort, and I agree with a lot of your comment, but you may
want to reconsider your ideas about that document. I consider it a huge link in the chain around
our necks. As for the "founding fathers," they were of opposing minds and the anti-federalists
had good reasons for arguing against the imposition of the constitution. They were mostly correct.
In fact, Patrick Henry refused to attend the Constitutional Convention saying, "I smell a rat."
He could have been totally anosmic and still would have been able to smell one, or more likely,
quite a few.
The document stinks, and here's why*.:
The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people
were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon
it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable
auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests.
Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented
interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one
of them represented the interest of production - Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded
from the start)
Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
[Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson]
*My apologies to those who've seen this numerous times before, but it's a critical message
and obviously must be presented to each individual as (s)he steps forward. Thanks in advance for
your patience as well as your indulgence!
Why doesn't Giraldi move to Iran ?
Thats where his concerns and allegiance are. And maybe the source of his finances also ?
I bet they would love a chubby bear like him.
Why don't you crawl back to the ghetto that you belong?
Why, after over two millennia of living in peace and prosperity in the land of Iran, the loudest
voices for going to destroy Iran is coming from Joooies Iranians who have left Iran after the
revolution? If they can't pinch a penny from you, you become their enemy. Has their lived such
a treacherous bunch?
It's greedy Zionists like you that end up putting the whole tribe in trouble
@Wizard of Oz
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/did-george-w-bush-do-all-he-could-to-prevent-911/411175/-Deputy
Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz obj
ected that "I just don't understand why we are beginning
by talking about this one man, bin Laden." Clarke responded that, "We are talking about a network
of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking
about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United
States." To which Wolfowitz replied, "Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much.
Iraqi terrorism for example."
and more "cording to Eichenwald's sources, "the
neoconservative
leaders who
had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the
CIA had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning
an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as
a greater threat."
He wrote, "Not one of them represented the interest of production- " but he had just listed
manufacturing as one of the represented interests. Also, in those days, did shipping include ship-building?
If not, it was certainly a closely related enterprise. Anyway, you see my point. Nock made an
absolute statement, but he himself contradicted it.
Certainly the scales were weighted, but so much of the argument here is just railing against
human nature. Are some people more ambitious or enterprising than others? (Let alone those who
are more evil and unscrupulous.)
Some people are very intelligently curious, but it seems rare that the scientist who makes [often
labors over for years] a discovery is the one who profits from it. Not fair perhaps, but the way
of business, the way of the world.
You don't like the Constitution or the Founders? They were the ones who stepped up to take
responsibility (and to press their own interests, if you will). It's hard to please everybody.
So much harder now that there are so many of us. Just look at how much disagreement there is here
in these comments. Can you imagine if there were another revolution, and afterwards a new convention.
Do you think they'd crowdsource the new Constitution on the web? Let the computer decide? Who
would program the machines?
@Mark Green
Hi Mark Green, well observed. The Arabs are so blinded by money, so lost in Zionist tricks, are
tripping in their own stupidity. One of the largest ethnic-religious groups in the world, wealthy,
but as dumb as a door nail, as Edward Said once said
"they are a sorry lot
", haven't yet
grasped how they're accommodating their own demise. Ironically, they're are paying for all expenses
that will finish them, at least send them to dark ages.
They don't see how they're being played by their
half-brothers
. I guess treachery is in
the blood ..
Note that the Saudi Royals 1) have totally accepted Israel, 2) have absolutely nothing negative
to say (or do) regarding Israel's subjugation of Palestine, 3) are hostile to Iran (like Israel),
and 4) are willing also to accept the Kingdoms's second-tier military status vis-a-vis Israel.
For these reasons, the authoritarian, undemocratic, and terror-funding Royal Saudi family is
totally 'in sync' with Zio-Washington. The Saudis are even safe from any potential US-Israeli
destabilization campaign. (At least for now.)
to understand the Saudi leadership, you need only see how they got along with Iran during the
reign of the Shah; a Zio/Anglo quisling installed after the CIA putsch that removed the legitimate,
democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.
Under the quisling puppet Shah, Iran was terrorized by a CIA/Mossad run organization notorious
for its torture methods.
Time magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution"
which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[24] The Federation of
American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political
prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963–79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods
included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water
into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails."[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
it was during this reign of Zionist and Anglo terror that
the corrupt House of Saud got along wonderfully with the Shah's Zio-Iran. Here you see the king
of Saudi Arabia dancing for the amusement of the treacherous little Shah:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYIft-_FcYQ
- who exhorted the rulers of Saudi Arabia to embrace the cultural and spiritual sewage of the
Zio-West thus:
"Please, my brother, modernize. Open up your country. Make the schools mixed women and men.
Let women wear miniskirts. Have discos. Be modern. Otherwise I cannot guarantee you will stay
on your throne."[15]
as long as Iran was under the thrall of the Fiend, the Saudi were their bestest buddies ever.
They were also bestest buddies with Israel and England and the ZUSA.
so much treachery and evil and oppression and murder and torture.. it makes the head spin.
anyways, what do you expect from a
fiend,
I guess
so today the Saudis are still under the thrall of the same Fiend, but Iran is not. Hence Saudi
Arabia assassinates Shia clerics it doesn't like, and Iran gets blamed for human rights violations.
The lies and mendacity and treachery are nearly beyond comprehension. The Saudis toss their
fellow Arabs in Palestine under the Zionist bus, and fund and foment ISIS to crucify Christians
and burn men alive. The stark divisions between good and evil (if there are such concepts) could
hardly be more glaring.
and yet the Zio-fiend has Trump making nice with the murderous, terrorist-funding Saudis, while
saber rattling at the peaceful and civilized Iran.
great article yet again Mr. Giraldi --
Under the quisling puppet Shah, Iran was terrorized by a CIA/Mossad run organization notorious
for its torture methods.
Lets compare to the current regime that executes Bahai school teachers. Mona Mahmoudenezhad
, Bahai school teacher aged 17 years was executed along with 9 other female Bahai school teachers
by the Iranian regime you are so fond of. Execution method: Public hanging from crane.
Also denial of basic human rights : Homosexuality illegal and punishable by death penalty . 150
homosexuals executed each year in Iran .
Prosletizing Christianity is illegal and punishable by the death penalty .
Converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by the death penalty.
In court a mans testimony is given twice the weight of a womans.
fund and foment ISIS to crucify Christians and burn men alive
Muslims funding Muslims to kill Christians ? Nothing new . Has been going on for 1400 years.
@anon
It is official that loving America more than Zionists and Israel is anti-America. How embarrassing,
that you see some of our cuck politicians wear flag lapels on their suits with both the Zionist
and American flags as one.
Treason or patriotism?
We've already seen symbolically, the
swearing of allegiance to this treacherous "shitty" nation by these so called "
patriots
"
and I understand that there is also a thriving and ancient Jewish community in Iran.
OK, I checked and the women were hanged back in the early eighties, just following the revolution
that freed Iran from decades of Zionist atrocities and rapine, and apparently they were suspected
of collaborating with the Zionists somehow. But that was a long time ago, and I don't hold today's
Iranian government guilty for what was done decades ago.
the fact is that Iran has been wronged, (savaged even) by the ZUSA and Israel for a long, long
time. Following their revolution that freed them from the Zio-stooge Shah, the ZUSA used their
good buddy Saddam to wage a catastrophic war on Iran, and even handed Saddam some nice chemical
weapons and gas to use on Iranian troops. Charming huh?
They've been menaced by Israel for so long that it's part of the fabric of their national narrative,
because it seems that the Jewish supremacists can not stand to see others thrive. It drives them
whacky- it does. They must have their boot on all throats, Palestinian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian
and everybody else. Iran tells them to fuck off, and the Jewish supremacists go bonkers.
If there's another world war, it will be forced upon the planet by Jewish, Zionist supremacists
and their bought politician whores in London, Paris and DC.
I pray God speed to Trump in ferreting these Satanic scum out of the government and halls of
power here in the former (and soon to be great again) good ol' US of A.
@anon
The current Iranian regime is at least as ruthless and oppressive as was the regime led by the
Shah. However, that regime poses no threat to the United States of America and should not be our
problem. Trump is picking a fight with Iran because they threatened Israel. Again, Israel's fights
should be their own fights. Leave us out.
That being said, it is naive to dismiss how much damage we have done to countries like Iran
by meddling in their internal affairs and putting in power ruthless puppets like the shah. His
cruelty to his own people is what eventually led to his regime being destroyed. If you cause enough
harm to people, they will seek revenge.
If he had been more benevelont and avoided murder and mayhem, he may have been able to turn
his country around. But he would also have had to work for the interests of his own people.
@Mark Green
I would say "nice try" but that would be an exaggeration. The NY World closed in 1931 after being
sold by the Pulitzers (plural). You would of course know that they were not Jewish but I suppose
you could try making something of the fact that their mother was from a formerly slave owning
Southern family..
Must be strange to totallyl obsessed and consumed with something so trivial as " a shitty nation
".
But you being an Aryan I would think you would be more concerned with Germany and the fact that
you will lose the Aryan homeland within a couple of generations due to almost zero native birth
rate ,a soaring Muslim birhrate from your pet " refugees" and turkish laboreres, and millions
more military age Muslim men ( refugees ) pouring over your borders . But don't worry , keep obsessing
over Jews. By the way who perpetrated the sexual assault festival at Germanys expense on New Years
Eve , Jews or Muslims ,?? Who kidnapped/groomed and pimped out 1400 native British girls in Rotherham
, Muslims or Jews ??
Muslim men ( refugees ) pouring over your borders . But don't worry , keep obsessing over
Jews.
your butt-boy George Soros just got his arse handed to him
"... It is no longer disputed that the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented. ..."
Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media
It is no longer disputed that the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship
with news organizations and journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have
now been documented.
"... And the ultimate irony is that when it comes to terrorism the United States itself does not emerge without fault. As early as 2011, the U.S. was arming Syrian dissidents from the arsenals in Libya, flying in weapons to Turkey to hand over to the rebels. Many of the weapons, as well as those provided to Iraqi forces, have wound up in the hands of ISIS and al-Nusrah. U.S. advisers training rebels have conceded that it is impossible to determine the politics of many of those receiving instruction and weapons, an observation that has also been made by the Obama White House and by his State Department. ..."
A war against Iran would
be very popular both with the U.S. congress and the mainstream media, so it would be easy to sell
to the American public. The terrorist attack in Tehran on June 6
th
that killed 17 is
being
blamed in some Iranian circles
on the Saudis, a not unreasonable assumption. ISIS has claimed
responsibility for the attack but it must also be observed that both the Saudis and Israelis have
good connections with the terrorist group. But if the possibility of a possible Saudi hand is
true or even plausibly so, it guarantees a rise in tension and an incident at sea could easily be
contrived by either side to escalate into a shooting war. The United States would almost
inevitably be drawn in, particularly in light of Trump's ridiculous comment on the tragedy,
tweeting that Iran is"falling victim to the evil they promote."
There is also other considerable collateral damage to be
reckoned with as a consequence of the Trump intervention even if war can be avoided. Qatar hosts
the al-Udeid airbase, the largest in the Middle East, which is home to 10,000 U.S. servicemen and
serves as the Combined Air and Space Operations Center for Washington and its allies in the
region and beyond. Now the United States finds itself squarely in the middle of a fight between
two alleged friends that it doesn't have to involve itself in, an intervention that will produce
nothing but bad results. Backing Saudi Arabia in this quarrel serves no conceivable American
interest, particularly if the ultimate objective is to strike at a non-threatening Iran. So the
fallback position is to lie about what the support for the aggressive Saudi posturing really
means – it is alleged to be about terrorism, which is always a popular excuse for government
overreach.
And the ultimate irony is that when it comes to terrorism
the United States itself does not emerge without fault. As early as 2011, the U.S. was arming
Syrian dissidents from the arsenals in Libya, flying in weapons to Turkey to hand over to the
rebels. Many of the weapons, as well as those provided to Iraqi forces, have wound up in the
hands of ISIS and al-Nusrah. U.S. advisers training rebels have conceded that it is impossible to
determine the politics of many of those receiving instruction and weapons, an observation that
has also been made by the Obama White House and by his State Department.
So watch the lies if you want to know when the next war is
coming. If the House of Saud, the Israelis and Donald Trump are talking trash and seem to agree
about something then it is time to head for the bomb shelter. Will it be Iran or an escalating
catastrophe in Syria? Anything is possible.
The Senate on Tuesday narrowly rejected an effort to block part of
President Trump's $110 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia.
Senators voted 47-53 on advancing the resolution, falling short of the
simple majority needed to move forward. GOP Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul
(Ky.) Todd Young (Ind.) and Dean Heller (Nev.) voted with most Democrats to
advance it.
Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Bill Nelson
(Fla.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Mark Warner (Va.) voted against moving the
measure.
The motion faced an uphill climb in the Senate, despite growing concerns
about Saudi Arabia's involvement in Yemen's civil war.
"... Are there no longer any Sunday PM rallies in US cities against the electoral college which denied the dnc crooks their conned prize? ..."
"... "As for that cherished image of a shining city on a hill*? As my fiend Richard Pitkin says, there is a little city-on-a-hill in all Americans. It is a complicated sort of truth about which even Russian journalists and scholars may have a say." ..."
"... The biggest threat to the republic comes from the fuzz exploding from domestic faux media. So much for diminishing fuzz in the US! Russia's vapid "influence" compares little to the scam run by a pair of political parties owned by Wall St. *The latest refuge of Comey; rolling out Dutch Reagan's 'shiny city' scam......... ..."
Undiminshed fuzz is all the US gets from the dnc corrupted media!
"As for that cherished image of a shining city on a hill*? As my fiend Richard Pitkin says,
there is a little city-on-a-hill in all Americans. It is a complicated sort of truth about which
even Russian journalists and scholars may have a say."
The "shining city on a hill" sustains royalty, secures Wahhabi aims, wars to end "unjust
peace", ousts Qaddafi with no regard for how much turmoil millions endure and drops 27000 bombs
on 7 Muslim countries during 2016 a year of "peace" overseen by a 'peace prize' winner!
The biggest threat to the republic comes from the fuzz exploding from domestic faux media.
So much for diminishing fuzz in the US! Russia's vapid "influence" compares little to the scam
run by a pair of political parties owned by Wall St. *The latest refuge of Comey; rolling out
Dutch Reagan's 'shiny city' scam.........
Doubtless you have heard more than once the term "American Exceptionalism."
It implies, in short, that we are somehow special, different, superior. We
are the "city upon a hill" whose freedoms and accomplishments set us apart.
Alexis de Tocqueville coined the phrase midway through the 19th century, and
it has enjoyed constant deployment by politicians and pundits ever since,
because it lights a warm bulb of self-satisfaction in many bellies and
people feeling good about themselves are easier to convince. Salesmen
thrived on this axiom before Babylon's bricks were laid.
For the sake of
comparison, here's something exceptional: Médecins Sans Frontières. Founded
in France, the organization is most commonly known in the US as Doctors
Without Borders. Made up of more than 30,000 medical professionals,
administrators and logistical experts, this organization provides vital
health care in places mired in war and strife: Sudan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone,
Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Afghanistan sadly, the list has included some 70
countries over the intervening years, and does not stop. Military personnel
have a saying: "Run to the sound of the guns." Doctors Without Borders
volunteers do exactly the same thing.
This past weekend, Doctors Without Borders volunteers were treating
people in a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, when the building erupted in
fire and screaming. A US airstrike by a massive AC-130 gunship laid an ocean
of ordnance on the building at fifteen-minute intervals for more than an
hour, and when it was over, 22 people were dead including three children and
ten Doctors Without Borders staff members.
One
nurse who survived
recounted how the hospital was all but destroyed, and
when the survivors went in to look, they found six patients on fire in their
hospital beds.
For its part, the US said it wasn't us, then said it might have been us,
then said the hospital was a nest of Taliban fighters – a claim the doctors
dispute vehemently – before saying Afghan officials asked us to do it.
Yesterday, President Obama
personally apologized
to Dr. Joanne Liu, the organization's
international president, for the attack. Doctors Without Borders is not
having it, and is not mincing words. Immediately after the attack, the
organization's General Director, Christopher Stokes, said, "We reiterate
that the main hospital building, where medical personnel were caring for
patients, was repeatedly and very precisely hit during each aerial raid,
while the rest of the compound was left mostly untouched. We condemn this
attack, which constitutes a grave violation of International Humanitarian
Law." The organization's Executive Director, Jason Cone, described it as the
"darkest couple of days in our organization's history," before going on to
call the attack a "war crime." After the apology, Dr. Liu demanded an
independent investigation into the incident.
Never fear, however:
The
Authorities are on the case
. The Pentagon is going to investigate the
Pentagon to see if the Pentagon obliterated a hospital in Afghanistan by
bombing it with precision munitions fired from a massive gunship for more
than an hour, incinerating civilians, children and doctors. Sounds legit.
American Exceptionalism in full effect.
Speaking of which, the 247th mass shooting in the United States during
this current calendar year took place in Room 15 of Snyder Hall at Umpqua
Community College in Oregon on October 1. The man who did it shot down a
roomful of students, including a professor and a woman using a wheelchair.
A lady in the next classroom over with gray hair using a cane went to
investigate when the noise began, and staggered back moments later covered
in blood with part of her arm blasted away. "Don't go in there," she said
before collapsing. An Army veteran named Chris Mintz attempted to thwart the
attack and was shot five times, on his son's sixth birthday. He survived his
service and his deployments overseas intact, only to come home to a rain of
gunfire in the 45th school shooting incident this year alone.
When it was all over, nine people were dead. The shooter, whose name I
will not repeat because that's what he wanted, blew his own brains out once
he was cornered. Nine others were wounded. Everyone involved will be scarred
for life, emotionally if not physically, and the families of the dead are on
their way to funerals.
Some 87,000 people in the US have been shot dead since the unimaginable
Sandy Hook massacre. There have been 142 school shootings over that span of
time, and more mass shootings than days on the current calendar. If
international terrorists came to the US, killed 87,000 people and attacked
142 schools, the US Air Force would be unleashed with napalm, bombs, bullets
and rage to turn the rest of the planet into smoking glass in an act of
blind vengeance. Since we've done it to ourselves, however, it's just
politics. The NRA is powerful, you know. Exceptional.
Here's what would actually be exceptional: Don't bomb hospitals filled
with medical professional volunteers and civilians, including children.
Don't ignore the fact that the gun fetish in the United States is causing
bodies to be stacked like cordwood because the NRA, along with the gun
manufacturers and distributers who back them, throw weight in DC. This
nation is about as exceptional as the Mob: We rob, we intimidate and we kill
for profit. We kill ourselves at home and kill others abroad. We are not
special. We are dangerous.
It would be exceptional if we got ourselves out of the habit. I'm not
holding my breath.
Copyright, Truthout.org. Reprinted with permission.
Trump Just Dropped Chemical Weapons in a Major City, 100,000 Civilians Trapped
The Kurds are complicit in this crimes against humanity:
Multiple reports are confirming that a US-led Coalition used white phosphorus-loaded ammunitions
in heavily populated cities of Iraq and Syria. Thousands of civilians are known to be in the areas
where the weapons were used according to The Washington Post.
According to Airwars:
"As many as 100,000 civilians trapped inside the Islamic State-held city of Raqqa are being
given conflicting evacuation instructions according to Coalition statements and local reports,
as US-backed ground forces finally assault the city supported by air and artillery strikes.
Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) started their slow encirclement of Raqqa last
November. Artillery and airstrikes have rained down since then killing hundreds of civilians in
the near region according to monitors, though the final operation to take the city commenced officially
only on June 6th. In a press release published that day, the Coalition stressed that "The SDF
have encouraged civilians to depart Raqqah so that they do not become trapped, used as human shields
or become targets for ISIS snipers.",,,
"... Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat. ..."
"... The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment to nullify the results of that election. ..."
The ridiculous "Russian influence" narrative is a cynical ploy to pressure Trump to abandon
his America First campaign promises, and instead wage a counter productive regime change war in
Syria.
If Trump is not amenable to pressure, they establishment apparently plans to impeach Trump
and use Pence as their tool instead.
Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat.
The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment
is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment
to nullify the results of that election.
@Agent76
If only more people knew this information, and that all *Wars are Banker's
War's* as well!
Jun. 14, 2012 These *6* Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
That's consolidated from *50* companies back in 1983. But the fact that a
few companies own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal
Dad says.
A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market
shares. How many of the brands below do you use? It's a Small World at the
Top!
http://www.internationalbusinessguide.org/corporations/
Jun 11, 2017 The Weaponization of Information in the War of Terror
If
terrorist incidents are always tied back to shadowy groups linked to Al
Qaeda or ISIS, an online, independent media might connect those dots to show
how Al Qaeda and ISIS were literally created, fostered, funded, trained and
equipped by the UK government, the US government and their allies across the
world as a tool in their quest of dominance of the Middle East and control
of their domestic population.
You can't fix the media because its very raison d'etre is to subvert,
mislead and corrupt, to put the viewer and the nation inside a mental
labyrinth.
You see, in the US and the Western World, the Media is owned by
a cartel of Jewish people with a common agenda – they only talk about the
same events, with the same perspective. They change gears and news cycles in
unison, they command the discourse window.
Of course, Fox News is the opposite of CNN to the masses of disinformed,
but this is just a cordial accord between Owners to not eat each other's
audiences. Mainly a market strategy to not create cannibalization.
If the Media was supposed to be serious, "but currently is not and in
need of saving", instead of the truth of it never being anything close to
that, just a propaganda machine, then, in all those decades, and specially
now in the age of the internet, they should have been speaking about the
system of Debt Currency that ruins all nations, or how today in America we
have the biggest monopolies in the history of mankind, or how Immigration
from countries with non-European populations destroys social trust,
neighborhoods, cities, lower wages, overbudens public services, reintroduces
extinct diseases and many many more.
But they don't talk about any of that, and never will.
Forget about the media altogether, let it die and rot.
SIPRI Military Expenditure Database
2017 Fact Sheet (for 2016) [Wikipedia]
1 US $611.2B annually 3.3% of GDP
2 China $215.7B 1.9%
3 Russia $69.2B 5.3%
4 Saudi Arabia $63.7B 10%
5 India $55.9B 2.5%
6 France $55.7B 2.3%
7 UK $48.3B 1.9%
8 Japan $46.1B 1%
9 Germany $41.1B 1.2%
10 South Korea $36.8B 2.7%
Budget, US figure does not include OCO* which is separate
budget.
*spent on things like training al Qaeda in Syria
then defending US grab in Syria, body bags in Syria air
refueling and naval support for bombing Yemen, etc.
This 2.5% calculated vs GDP which includes oversized FIRE
sector. As such it is somewhat deceptive. Along the lines:
look how little we spend on defense.
The reality is different.
For 2015 total budget was 3.97 trillion. Military budget
was 637 billions. That's 16%. And part of military budget is
hidden (Department Of Energy, three letter agencies, etc.)
So we can assume that 2 out of each ten dollars goes to
defense. That's a serious hit and that might help to explain
crumbling infrastructure in the USA. Might be a symptom of
British-style overextension of the empire.
"... Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria. ..."
"... The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states. ..."
"... The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz." ..."
"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more
wars, wars we will lose.
Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been
fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.
The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel
our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon
pretends its future is war against other states.
The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They
waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."
"... Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having destroyed the Iraqi state? ..."
"... 4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem, and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . . . ..."
"... I understand you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President Donald J. Trump. ..."
"... Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced. ..."
"... Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East, beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan. ..."
"... Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as an absolute disaster. ..."
Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of
Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having
destroyed the Iraqi state?
4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic
dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem,
and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed
Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . .
.
It's tempting to project your preferences onto Trump because there's so much blank space there
in terms of policy, but Trump has in no way committed to firing half of our general officers,
or a "housecleaning" that takes away enough money from the Pentagon to fund a major infrastructure
program in its own right, or cancelling any weapons system currently under development.
This is all wishful thinking, even without considering what Congress would do. I understand
you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least
try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little
foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President
Donald J. Trump.
I wish it were as simple as waltzing about the Pentagon saying "You're Fired!" There's good reasoning
in the essay with which I agree; Trump seems to have the better instincts to deal with Pentagon
Inc, particularly when Option 2 is Hillary.
But. How does one reform an inherently unreformable institution? How to overcome a system
rigged with flag officers and SES bureaucrats that were groomed for their true-belief in the military-industrial
complex? Maybe I'm just the eternal pessimist, but knowing the Pentagon culture firsthand, I see
zero chance at a "businessman-led housecleaning of the U.S. military.
"4GW does not justify big-ticket programs such as the F-35 fighter/bomber and its trillion-dollar
price tag."
I would go further and say nothing justifies the F-35. Because of its expense, it is not mass
producible, and therefore not suitable for a conventional war either. The cost/aircraft would
come down with mass production, but it would still be too expensive and slow to mass produce in
an all-out conventional war. It would be kind of like an aerial tiger tank.
Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who
thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to
have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced.
William S. Lind contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to Pentagon reform:
Trump: "Because Trump is anti-establishment, military reform would at least be a possibility
.Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut
bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."
Clinton: On the other hand, "So long as the establishment is in power, it [reform ] is not
[possible]. In defense as in everything else, establishment leadership means more of the same.
In the case of Hillary Clinton that mean[s] more wasted money."
Lind also contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to American interventionism:
Trump: "He has repeatedly questioned American interventionism. He roundly condemned the idiotic
and disastrous Iraq War, which suggests he would rather not repeat the experience. Of equal importance,
he has called for repairing our relationship with Russia."
Clinton: A Hillary Clinton presidency "means more wars, wars we will lose. Hillary is a wild-eyed
interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her
again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria."
However – on reading further in the Lind article – it becomes apparent that Lind's argument
is not so much with endless American military interventionism as it is with the targets of endless
American interventionism:
"The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states The establishment refuses to
compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war Might
a Trump administration see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?"
In other words, Lind proposes to merely redirect the current endless American military interventions
away from existing nation states and towards non-state forces. Lind doesn't simply want to work
with other states on a case-by-case basis when it is in the US national interest to do so - rather
he wants a new "grand strategy" of an open-ended world-wide alliance with other states against
non-state forces. Lind doesn't want to put a stop to endless American military interventionism,
but instead to concentrate on a new kind of endless American interventionism.
An additional point of concern in the Lind article: In asking "Might a Trump administration
see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?" Lind writes: "Here we have
a clue: Trump has chosen as a defense advisor-the rumor mill says shadow secretary of defense-retired
Army general Michael Flynn. It was an excellent choice."
Two reference articles show why Michael Flynn would not be an "excellent choice"at all: First,
in Flynn's own words on July 9th op-ed in The New York Post:
Wishful thinking, Mr. Lind even if Trump could with the election and try to make the changes you
envision. Truth be told, America is now govern by the "Deep State" of which the MIC is major part
of. Also, the MIC is not the least interested in ending any of these interventions wars as that
would negatively impact their "gravy train".
I agree that we may be projecting our wishful thinking on Trump, but what is the alternative?
Faced with a choice between a known bad apple and an apple that gives some vague hope, it is rational
to bet on the second. Especially given that it is hard to imagine an apple more rotten than HRC,
so our downside risk is limited too.
PS I was always willing to give pres. Obama a bit of a free pass because of his refusal to
implicate us any deeper in the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. I figured the atrocity of Yemen
and blunders elsewhere (Iraq, Afghanistan, relationship with SA and Turkey, the lack of resolve
to draw an even clearer line in the sand on Syria, Libya, and Ukraine) were the norm given the
neocon-infested foreign policy apparatus, and at least he was putting up SOME resistance. Sadly,
that resounding endorsement of HRC blew it all up, he has fallen in line and we are in for some
more GW-Cheney-style insanity should she prevail. Whatever respect I had for him is now gone.
I was hoping he'd try to setup things so that the resistance to the neocon insanity and jingoism
would grow further, not fall back, as the choice of HRC clearly indicates.
"Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance
needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced."
"Positive influence" is all well and good, but we're in slow motion collapse, and it's beside
the point.
Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions
of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East,
beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan.
I have no idea what the Clinton supporters hope for. More abortions? More government jobs?
More immigrants? More gay weddings and transwhatever toilets? More dead Americans and Middle Easterners?
More Wall Street bailouts? More foreign dictators and more taxpayer money to put them on the US
payroll? They probably aren't thinking "more money and power for the Clintons", "more recklessness
and irresponsibility", or "more scandal and embarrassment", even though that's about all they'll
get.
While it's true this is wishful thinking, one just needs to remember the alternative. It is as
certain as anything can be in this life that with Clinton we will rush full speed ahead into more
of the same disasters. Trump is bad, but worse than the status quo? That's hard to imagine. Flynn,
though, seems to be another neocon nut, though I'm open to any contrary evidence.
I wish it were otherwise, but I don't even think that Trump is a serious candidate. He's done
nothing to encourage his supporters, taken little to no advantage of Clinton's obvious shortcomings,
and everything to provide ammunition to Clinton's legions of delusional 'liberal' fascists. This
is not a Donald who wants to win.
"Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut
bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."
Nah.
Here's how Trump runs his businesses, he incurs enormous debts by grossly overpaying for whatever
new toy he wants. Then he incurs more debt to pay himself and his family large salaries or to
pay off his personal debts. He also wastes money on the gaudy, unnecessary and tasteless "improvements"
to his purchases(small e.g., gold plated fixtures in the Trump Shuttle bathrooms). Then, he doesn't
pay contractors for the work they performed. And, when it all goes belly-up he leaves his foolish
investors or the banks holding the bag (i.e., the enormous debt).
More simply, going by his business record Trump actually loves debt, incompetence, overspending
and obscene waste.
Trump dug his grave when he delved into xenophobia and ethnic chauvinism.His ranting about Mexicans
and Muslims and now his new Nixonian slogan of being a tough law and order president has given
enough ammunition to the Democrats to trounce him coming next election.
I think Lind is proof of the triumph of hope over reality here; either that or that there is a
sucker born every minute. I think some important facts about Flynn are missed here. Here is a
statement he made to Hugh Hewitt:
"Last, I'm going to just touch on Russia and Iran briefly. Both of these countries, I deal
with in my book, because these are allies of radical Islamism, and most people don't know how
they are interacting with each other. So I just wanted to touch on that."
Today, July 12th, his book with Michael Ledeen as co-author, Field of Fight, was released.
In Flynn's own words:
"Yet, the alliance exists, and we've already dithered for many years.
The war is on. We face a working coalition that extends from North Korea and China to Russia,
Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. We are under attack, not only from nation
states, but also from al Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, and countless other terrorist groups. Suffice
to say, the same sort of cooperation binds together jihadis, Communists, and garden-variety
tyrants.
Flynn isn't an antidote to Hilary Clinton; they're equals in madness.
I wouldn't even now bet on Trump being the Republican nominee - the Republican establishment may
well prefer to be trounced rather than elect Trump. Look for them to give Trump the kind of "support"
a rope gives a hanged man, or to change the rules so they can select another nominee, or a combination
of both. Paul Ryan has been making noises about allowing delegates to vote their conscience on
the 1st ballot, allowing nervous Trump delegates to jump ship. All it would take is a meeting
of GOP Rules Committee, which happens just before the convention. And this is a senator who has
"endorsed" Trump, even if he has also called him a "racist."
from sglover:
"Maintaining a wobbly status quo. You'll see no grand visions of anything from HRC"
Sadly I think that IS what's expected. Similar to how Trump voters don't see him so much as
doing great things as much as "80% chance of failure is better than 100%", Hillary voters see
it as more "keeping the plane slightly tilted down being better than blowing the plane up with
dynamite."
Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as
an absolute disaster.
I'll be honest, given what the GOP was giving up as alternatives and assuming that Sanders
didn't have a chance in hades, Trump/Hillary was, to me, the best outcome out of the primaries.
I don't support Trump but I'd take him over Rubio or Bush.
Though note that at this point 8 years ago, I was saying "oh, Obama vs McCain. Either way,
I'm happy." Then the general election campaign kicked in and I stopped being happy over the latter
:/
Sort of worried I'll see the same here, and if the rumors about Trump's shift are true, then
I think that's exactly what I'll be seeing.
Dec 18, 2015 Donald Trump Is The Establishment Candidate
While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political
status quo, let's look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions,
represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the "anti-establishment"?
Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.
"... Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having destroyed the Iraqi state? ..."
"... 4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem, and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . . . ..."
"... I understand you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President Donald J. Trump. ..."
"... Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced. ..."
"... Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East, beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan. ..."
"... Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as an absolute disaster. ..."
Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of
Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having
destroyed the Iraqi state?
4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic
dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem,
and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed
Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . .
.
It's tempting to project your preferences onto Trump because there's so much blank space there
in terms of policy, but Trump has in no way committed to firing half of our general officers,
or a "housecleaning" that takes away enough money from the Pentagon to fund a major infrastructure
program in its own right, or cancelling any weapons system currently under development.
This is all wishful thinking, even without considering what Congress would do. I understand
you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least
try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little
foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President
Donald J. Trump.
I wish it were as simple as waltzing about the Pentagon saying "You're Fired!" There's good reasoning
in the essay with which I agree; Trump seems to have the better instincts to deal with Pentagon
Inc, particularly when Option 2 is Hillary.
But. How does one reform an inherently unreformable institution? How to overcome a system
rigged with flag officers and SES bureaucrats that were groomed for their true-belief in the military-industrial
complex? Maybe I'm just the eternal pessimist, but knowing the Pentagon culture firsthand, I see
zero chance at a "businessman-led housecleaning of the U.S. military.
"4GW does not justify big-ticket programs such as the F-35 fighter/bomber and its trillion-dollar
price tag."
I would go further and say nothing justifies the F-35. Because of its expense, it is not mass
producible, and therefore not suitable for a conventional war either. The cost/aircraft would
come down with mass production, but it would still be too expensive and slow to mass produce in
an all-out conventional war. It would be kind of like an aerial tiger tank.
Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who
thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to
have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced.
William S. Lind contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to Pentagon reform:
Trump: "Because Trump is anti-establishment, military reform would at least be a possibility
.Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut
bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."
Clinton: On the other hand, "So long as the establishment is in power, it [reform ] is not
[possible]. In defense as in everything else, establishment leadership means more of the same.
In the case of Hillary Clinton that mean[s] more wasted money."
Lind also contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to American interventionism:
Trump: "He has repeatedly questioned American interventionism. He roundly condemned the idiotic
and disastrous Iraq War, which suggests he would rather not repeat the experience. Of equal importance,
he has called for repairing our relationship with Russia."
Clinton: A Hillary Clinton presidency "means more wars, wars we will lose. Hillary is a wild-eyed
interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her
again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria."
However – on reading further in the Lind article – it becomes apparent that Lind's argument
is not so much with endless American military interventionism as it is with the targets of endless
American interventionism:
"The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states The establishment refuses to
compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war Might
a Trump administration see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?"
In other words, Lind proposes to merely redirect the current endless American military interventions
away from existing nation states and towards non-state forces. Lind doesn't simply want to work
with other states on a case-by-case basis when it is in the US national interest to do so - rather
he wants a new "grand strategy" of an open-ended world-wide alliance with other states against
non-state forces. Lind doesn't want to put a stop to endless American military interventionism,
but instead to concentrate on a new kind of endless American interventionism.
An additional point of concern in the Lind article: In asking "Might a Trump administration
see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?" Lind writes: "Here we have
a clue: Trump has chosen as a defense advisor-the rumor mill says shadow secretary of defense-retired
Army general Michael Flynn. It was an excellent choice."
Two reference articles show why Michael Flynn would not be an "excellent choice"at all: First,
in Flynn's own words on July 9th op-ed in The New York Post:
Wishful thinking, Mr. Lind even if Trump could with the election and try to make the changes you
envision. Truth be told, America is now govern by the "Deep State" of which the MIC is major part
of. Also, the MIC is not the least interested in ending any of these interventions wars as that
would negatively impact their "gravy train".
I agree that we may be projecting our wishful thinking on Trump, but what is the alternative?
Faced with a choice between a known bad apple and an apple that gives some vague hope, it is rational
to bet on the second. Especially given that it is hard to imagine an apple more rotten than HRC,
so our downside risk is limited too.
PS I was always willing to give pres. Obama a bit of a free pass because of his refusal to
implicate us any deeper in the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. I figured the atrocity of Yemen
and blunders elsewhere (Iraq, Afghanistan, relationship with SA and Turkey, the lack of resolve
to draw an even clearer line in the sand on Syria, Libya, and Ukraine) were the norm given the
neocon-infested foreign policy apparatus, and at least he was putting up SOME resistance. Sadly,
that resounding endorsement of HRC blew it all up, he has fallen in line and we are in for some
more GW-Cheney-style insanity should she prevail. Whatever respect I had for him is now gone.
I was hoping he'd try to setup things so that the resistance to the neocon insanity and jingoism
would grow further, not fall back, as the choice of HRC clearly indicates.
"Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance
needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced."
"Positive influence" is all well and good, but we're in slow motion collapse, and it's beside
the point.
Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions
of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East,
beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan.
I have no idea what the Clinton supporters hope for. More abortions? More government jobs?
More immigrants? More gay weddings and transwhatever toilets? More dead Americans and Middle Easterners?
More Wall Street bailouts? More foreign dictators and more taxpayer money to put them on the US
payroll? They probably aren't thinking "more money and power for the Clintons", "more recklessness
and irresponsibility", or "more scandal and embarrassment", even though that's about all they'll
get.
While it's true this is wishful thinking, one just needs to remember the alternative. It is as
certain as anything can be in this life that with Clinton we will rush full speed ahead into more
of the same disasters. Trump is bad, but worse than the status quo? That's hard to imagine. Flynn,
though, seems to be another neocon nut, though I'm open to any contrary evidence.
I wish it were otherwise, but I don't even think that Trump is a serious candidate. He's done
nothing to encourage his supporters, taken little to no advantage of Clinton's obvious shortcomings,
and everything to provide ammunition to Clinton's legions of delusional 'liberal' fascists. This
is not a Donald who wants to win.
"Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut
bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."
Nah.
Here's how Trump runs his businesses, he incurs enormous debts by grossly overpaying for whatever
new toy he wants. Then he incurs more debt to pay himself and his family large salaries or to
pay off his personal debts. He also wastes money on the gaudy, unnecessary and tasteless "improvements"
to his purchases(small e.g., gold plated fixtures in the Trump Shuttle bathrooms). Then, he doesn't
pay contractors for the work they performed. And, when it all goes belly-up he leaves his foolish
investors or the banks holding the bag (i.e., the enormous debt).
More simply, going by his business record Trump actually loves debt, incompetence, overspending
and obscene waste.
Trump dug his grave when he delved into xenophobia and ethnic chauvinism.His ranting about Mexicans
and Muslims and now his new Nixonian slogan of being a tough law and order president has given
enough ammunition to the Democrats to trounce him coming next election.
I think Lind is proof of the triumph of hope over reality here; either that or that there is a
sucker born every minute. I think some important facts about Flynn are missed here. Here is a
statement he made to Hugh Hewitt:
"Last, I'm going to just touch on Russia and Iran briefly. Both of these countries, I deal
with in my book, because these are allies of radical Islamism, and most people don't know how
they are interacting with each other. So I just wanted to touch on that."
Today, July 12th, his book with Michael Ledeen as co-author, Field of Fight, was released.
In Flynn's own words:
"Yet, the alliance exists, and we've already dithered for many years.
The war is on. We face a working coalition that extends from North Korea and China to Russia,
Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. We are under attack, not only from nation
states, but also from al Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, and countless other terrorist groups. Suffice
to say, the same sort of cooperation binds together jihadis, Communists, and garden-variety
tyrants.
Flynn isn't an antidote to Hilary Clinton; they're equals in madness.
I wouldn't even now bet on Trump being the Republican nominee - the Republican establishment may
well prefer to be trounced rather than elect Trump. Look for them to give Trump the kind of "support"
a rope gives a hanged man, or to change the rules so they can select another nominee, or a combination
of both. Paul Ryan has been making noises about allowing delegates to vote their conscience on
the 1st ballot, allowing nervous Trump delegates to jump ship. All it would take is a meeting
of GOP Rules Committee, which happens just before the convention. And this is a senator who has
"endorsed" Trump, even if he has also called him a "racist."
from sglover:
"Maintaining a wobbly status quo. You'll see no grand visions of anything from HRC"
Sadly I think that IS what's expected. Similar to how Trump voters don't see him so much as
doing great things as much as "80% chance of failure is better than 100%", Hillary voters see
it as more "keeping the plane slightly tilted down being better than blowing the plane up with
dynamite."
Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as
an absolute disaster.
I'll be honest, given what the GOP was giving up as alternatives and assuming that Sanders
didn't have a chance in hades, Trump/Hillary was, to me, the best outcome out of the primaries.
I don't support Trump but I'd take him over Rubio or Bush.
Though note that at this point 8 years ago, I was saying "oh, Obama vs McCain. Either way,
I'm happy." Then the general election campaign kicked in and I stopped being happy over the latter
:/
Sort of worried I'll see the same here, and if the rumors about Trump's shift are true, then
I think that's exactly what I'll be seeing.
Dec 18, 2015 Donald Trump Is The Establishment Candidate
While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political
status quo, let's look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions,
represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the "anti-establishment"?
Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.
"... Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria. ..."
"... The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states. ..."
"... The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz." ..."
"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more
wars, wars we will lose.
Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been
fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.
The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel
our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon
pretends its future is war against other states.
The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They
waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."
"... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
"... Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
"... Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case and liquidate the office himself. ..."
"... My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory ..."
"... So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers. ..."
"... He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of "no warning signs" of any sort of attack. ..."
"... Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley, that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui." ..."
"... To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal" Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats. Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11! ..."
"... The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans' behind-the-scenes role in all this. ..."
"... March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley ..."
"... Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should be very cautions following them. They are likely faked. ..."
"... Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
"... The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following: ..."
Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller
and James Comey as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar
Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into proper perspective.
Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President
Trump, have been hailed for their impeccable character by much of Official Washington, the truth
is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration (Mueller as FBI Director
and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses
of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited
plain vanilla incompetence.
TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a "
bombshell
memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's
having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence
failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed
the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring
and Summer of 2001.
Bush Administration officials had circled the wagons and refused to publicly own up to what the
9/11 Commission eventually concluded, "that the
system had
been blinking red ." Failures to read, share or act upon important intelligence, which a FBI
agent witness termed "
criminal negligence " in later trial testimony, were therefore not fixed in a timely manner.
(Some failures were never fixed at all.)
Worse, Bush and Cheney used that post 9/11 period of obfuscation to "roll out" their misbegotten
"war on terror," which only served to
exponentially increase worldwide terrorism .
Unfulfilled Promise
I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the
night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements
and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was
behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures.
A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence
to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer,
emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President
Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded
to my email.
Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath
of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the "
post 9/11 round-up "
of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at
the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially
P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply
grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the
detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that
none turned out to be terrorists .
A History of Failure
Long before he became FBI Director, serious
questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling
decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other
"top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered
through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100
million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang.
For his part, Deputy Attorney General
James Comey , too, went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on
a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and
torture of captives . Comey also defended the Bush Administration's three-year-long detention
of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel.
Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room, both Comey and Mueller
were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel
memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial"
or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state
of emergency."
The Comey/Mueller Myth
What's not well understood is that Comey's and Mueller's joint intervention to stop Bush's men
from forcing the sick Attorney General to sign the certification that night was a short-lived moment.
A few days later, they all simply went back to the drawing board to draft new legal loopholes to
continue the same (unconstitutional) surveillance of Americans.
The mythology of this episode, repeated endlessly throughout the press, is that Comey and Mueller
did something significant and lasting in that hospital room. They didn't. Only the legal rationale
for their unconstitutional actions was tweaked.
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting
torture programs
after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document
such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance
and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA
and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
ORDER IT NOW
Neither Comey nor Mueller - who are reported to be "
joined at the hip " - deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media.
Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like "G-men" with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants
and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with former CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet,
reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses of power along
with official incompetence.
It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the
closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was
chosen as
Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him
to do.
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out
against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the
truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."
Coleen Rowley , a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo
to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of
TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert Mueller in opposition to
launching the Iraq War is
archived in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled "
Questions for the FBI Nominee " was published on the day of James Comey's confirmation hearing.
This piece will also be cross-posted on Rowley's Huffington Post page.
As Colleen Rowley has so thoroughly and unequivocally demonstrated here, both Comey and Mueller
are living examples of the Peter Principle (that managers rise to the level of their incompetence).
According to Jonathan Turley, one of the best and most respected legal experts, Comey may have
violated the law using his professor friend to leak what he thought was an incriminating memorandum
documenting Trump's "hope" that he would lay off Flynn because Flynn was a "good guy." Even torture
advocate Dershowitz, who, for his obvious faults, is a talented lawyer, indicates that it is preposterous
to call this "obstruction of justice" when Trump had the power to pardon anybody. Meanwhile, the
fact that Comey didn't find it necessary to document his interrogation of the harpy on the "matter"
of her email server reveals that he seemed totally willing for justice to be obstructed in a more
obvious fashion if he was on board with those doing the obstructing. It also came out that some
of his testimony today appears to contradict statements he made under oath to Senator Grassley
in a hearing dated May 3.
Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and
no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal
digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done
in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case
and liquidate the office himself.
My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi
Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband
was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory
There are now lots of current news stories of Feinstein and open coup plotter Schumer excited
about Muller's appointment to convict Trump for something. This from her own website:
Washington-Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on the
appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel: "The appointment of Bob
Mueller as special counsel for the Russia investigation is a good first step to get to the bottom
of the many questions we have about Russian interference in our election and possible ties to
the president.
"Bob was a fine U.S. attorney, a great FBI director and there's no better person who could
be asked to perform this function. He is respected, he is talented and he has the knowledge and
ability to do the right thing."
"In announcing his resignation, Yamaguchi said Attorney General Janet Reno will appoint Robert
Mueller, a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco, as interim U.S. attorney. He is currently
chief of the homicide division at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C. Mueller has spent
almost his entire career as a federal prosecutor, doing both civil and criminal work in the San
Francisco district and then moving to the U.S. attorney's office in Boston. He eventually joined
the Justice Department, where he was an assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division."
So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers.
Mueller went on to play key roles in the PanAm Lockerbie coverup and the 9-11 ruse, despite
this:
"Mr. Mueller's credibility was harshly attacked in a letter made public last weekend in which
a Minneapolis agent said the F.B.I. director was engaged in a public relations campaign "to protect
the F.B.I. at all costs" after Sept. 11. But they said a review of his public remarks about the
Sept. 11 investigation had raised uncomfortable questions about the F.B.I. director's credibility
and about his ability to gather accurate information from his deputies."
In a news conference on Wednesday that amounted to a painful mea culpa for the bureau and for
his performance in the nine months since he took over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr.
Mueller said, "I have made mistakes occasionally in my public comments based on information or
a lack of information that I subsequently got."
He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered
assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be
training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of
"no warning signs" of any sort of attack.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said
his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley,
that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the
investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui."
To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal"
Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director
to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting
to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats.
Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11!
Yes, all corruption in DC eventually becomes a 9-11 thread.
The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false
flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats
are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans'
behind-the-scenes role in all this.
Also, Colleen Rowley mentions that Meuller ignored his FBI agents' warnings about not going
along with CIA torture overseas, yet there is reason to believe that FBI agents were in fact sent
overseas to coordinate this activity with the CIA and Mossad.
March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley
Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack
can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should
be very cautions following them. They are likely faked.
Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose
Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria
and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.
I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the fact) to counter
any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.
Counterpunch does publish many interesting articles, once upon a time, I was to considering
subscription to the print edition, but no credit card, and the 80 to 90% idiocy on the site, The
article at the link below is not unrepresentative, though it is at the bottom end of the scale.
March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate
Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics
– it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive
electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information
onto President Trump.
Jan 2, 2017 CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used
a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's
not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game!
Nice Try Clinton News Network!
@Che Guava This is another good read Che Guava. November 07, 2016 FBI Director James Comey:
Hillary Should Not Face Criminal Charges
But Who Conducted the Investigation? FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Whose Wife Received
$467,500. FBI Director James Comey (image left) decided to issue a report two days before the
November election confirming that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary in
relation to the recent release of 650,000 Emails on October 28th.
@Carlton Meyer This a very good read on the 9/11 event. September 07, 2016 September 11, 2001:
The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to be trucked away and shipped to China – an order that constitutes
disturbing a crime scene – which is a federal crime.
@MarkinLA I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the
fact) to counter any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.
What is wrong with this sentence? Actually what is right about your post ia that it draws attention
to the likelihood that the President would have recordings of all such conversations (not ones
when he says "come for a walk with me while I stretch my legs in the garden") and that, anyway,
a canny fellow like Comey would assume so and, accordingly, make notes immediately afterwards
to ensure that he was right on all the key points. Which all leads to the conclusion that recordings
would bear out Comey.
@Agent76 As a big factor in Comey's thinking just before the election when new material possibly
pertinent to Clinton's irregullarities came to FBI attention would have been his own self interest
it seems reasonable to suppose that both his embarrassment of Clinton by his communication to
Congress and his exoneration of her were part of a process which began with "how bad could it
be for me if Clinton wins [as I sulppose she will] and something really bad turns up from the
investigation of the emails?". Then, given it was true, the exonerating statement is a no brainer
(he restores his position as well as he can with Clinton in case she wins and he inly diminishes
his credit with Trump slightly if Trumo wins).
The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11
cult include the following:
Believers in the ridiculous official narrative of the 19 miracle working Jihadist amateur
pilots and hydrocarbon based office fires.
Those who maintain that the Bush Administration was "incompetent" and that it "ignored
the warnings."
The LIHOP crowd- Bush and Cheney deviously let it happen on purpose.
Robert Muller's role has nothing to do with being an impartial prosecutor but about being a
"fixer" in proper Washingtonian parlance. He was probably brought into the FBI to insure a foreordained
"slam dunk" verdict that 19 Arab amateur pilots hijacked 4 airliners led by a deathly ill man
living in a cave, performed miraculous feats of aviation which would have made Waldo Pepper envious
and violated the laws of physics all in one day. Now he is serving another purpose for his string
pullers in the deep state by torpedoing Trump.
As Conan-Doyle wrote, "Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth."
Office fires, nor jet fuel, nor building collapses or aircraft impacts will not cause hundreds
of thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete to undergo molecular dissociation and turn
into dust clouds. They generally do not cause the metal components of vehicles in the vicinity
to be destroyed while their non-metallic components remain intact. Neither will conventional explosives
or even nano-thermite. The destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2 and the core of WTC 6 was not caused by
any of these things alone. WTC 7 may have been a case of conventional controlled demolition, but
the idea that it experienced universal failure and collapsed into its footprint because of "raging
fires" is too stupid for words.
It is O'Brien holding up the three fingers and torturing Winston into seeing two – except that
a good part of our public accepts their masters' voice willingly and enthusiastically, even today
in 2017.
The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11
cult include the following:
Not sure anyone would accuse Philip Giraldi (former counter-terrorism specialist and military
intelligence officer of the CIA) of someone who is "within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult":
If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine that the Washington Post would have
found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious and like to talk.
This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters about the 9/11 Commission.
Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order to protect certain governmental
interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy involving what must have been hundreds
of people to demolish the Twin Towers with explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago
.
In the latest video clip segment for the Showtime documentary of Vladimir Putin by Oscar ward
winning director Oliver Stone, the Russian President surprisingly speaks with respect for Senator
John McCain, a neocon warmonger, who consistently calls for conflict with Russia and played an
integral role in the US coup in Ukraine in 2014.
Putin told Stone in Moscow
"Well, honestly, I like Senator McCain to a certain extent. And I'm not joking.
I
like him because of his patriotism,
and I can relate to his consistency in fighting
for the interests of his own country."
RT reports
that the Russian President compared US Senator McCain to the Ancient Roman
Senator, Cato the Elder, who routinely signed off his speeches, regardless of the subject, with
the phrase,
"Carthage must be destroyed."
"People with such convictions, like the Senator you mentioned, they still live in the Old
World. And they're reluctant to look into the future, they are unwilling to recognize how fast
the world is changing."
"They do not see the real threat, and they cannot leave behind the past, which is always
dragging them back,"
"Unfortunately there are many senators like this in the United States."
The military/security complex spent seven
decades building its empire. The complex assassinated one American president
(JFK) who threatened the empire and drove another (Richard Nixon) out of
office. The complex does not tolerate the election of politicians in Europe
who might not follow Washington's line on foreign and economic policy.
Suddenly, according to the Western and
even Russian media, the complex is going to let one man, Trump, who does not
rule America, and one woman, Merkel, who does not rule Germany, destroy its
empire.
According to the presstitutes, by pulling
out of the Paris Accord (the global climate pact) and stating that NATO
members should contribute more to the alliance's budget for which the US
taxpayer has an overweighted share, Trump has caused Merkel to conclude that
Europe can no longer rely on Washington. The discord between Trump and
Merkel and Washington's resignation of its leadership position has destroyed
the Western alliance and left the EU itself on the verge of being torn
apart.
All of this is nonsensical sillyness. What
has happened is this:
Just as men in dark suits and dark ties
carrying briefcases explained to Trump that it was not Washington's policy
to normalize relations with Russia, they explained to him that it was not
Washington's policy to exit the Paris Accord. Trump said something like
this: Look, you guys, you have already required me to abandon my peace
initiative with Russia and my intent to pull out of Syria. Now you are
forcing me off my "America First" pledge. If people realize that I am not
really the president, who are you going to rule through? What about a
compromise?
Here is the deal, as Trump made perfectly
clear in his speech. He is temporarily pulling the US out of the Paris
Accord while he immediately opens negotiations to rejoin the Paris Accord on
terms less burdensome to Americans. In other words, the "pull out" is a
face-saving gesture that will result in a small reduction in America's share
of the cost. We will have a "Trump victory" and no damage to the Paris
Accord.
Merkel facing reelection needs a boost
that will refocus German attention from the one million Muslim refugees,
bringing crime, rape, and terrorism in their train, that Merkel brought into
Germany. Her dramatic statement that Europe can no longer rely on America
was a perfect way to refocus attention. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and
Merkel got together and agreed on how they would play this.
Yet neither reporters nor commentators
could report the obvious truth. Why? The Western media could not let pass
the opportunity to denounce Trump for destroying American leadership and the
climate, and environmental organizations seized the fundraising opportunity
to oppose Trump's climate destruction. Russian commentators saw hope for
Russia in NATO and the EU breaking up as consequences of America going its
own way.
There are two serious implications of this
media deception. One is that Americans and the world are blinded to the fact
that there are power centers that constrain a president and are capable of
substituting their agendas for the agendas on which the president
campaigned. We saw this with Obama, but were given the explanation that
Obama never meant it in the first place. Now we will get the same
explanation of Trump. The fact that the president is constrained by the
military/security complex and the financial sector will not come through.
Thus, The Matrix's myth of democracy bringing change via elections will
continue to blind people to reality.
A second consequence is that the Russians,
ever hopeful to be part of the West while retaining national sovereignty,
which no member of the EU or NATO is permitted to do, will see in the
reported withdrawal of American leadership renewed hopes of joining Europe.
If the Russians take seriously the New York Times anointment of Germany's
Merkel as "the liberal West's last defender" (
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/world/europe/germany-merkel-trump-election.html?mcubz=0&_r=1
), Russia might leave herself militarily and economically exposed by slowing
military preparations and the development of economic relations with Asia.
People can have little idea of actual
events as long as news reporting and commentary reflect political agendas
and hopeful aspirations.
"... U.S. officials (and The New York Times) have made it a practice to white-out the coup d'etat in Kiev and to begin recent European history with Russia's immediate reaction, thus the relentless presentation of these events as simply "Russian aggression," as if Russia instigated the crisis, not the U.S. ..."
Exclusive: By dunning NATO nations to chip more money into the military alliance, President Trump
may inadvertently cause some Europeans to rethink the over-the-top anti-Russian propaganda, says
ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump traveled to Brussels, Belgium on Wednesday
evening for their fourth stop on their trip abroad. President Trump met with leaders from around
the world before the NATO Summit in Brussels. (White House photo)
At that point it will become possible to see through the West's alarmist propaganda. It will also
become more difficult to stoke artificial fears that Russia, for reasons known only to NATO war planners
and neoconservative pundits, will attack NATO. As long as Russian hardliners do not push President
Vladimir Putin aside, Moscow will continue to reject its assigned role as bête noire.
First a request:Let me ask those of you who believe Russia is planning to invade Europe to put
down the New York Times for a minute or two.Take a deep cleansing breath, and try to be
open to the possibility that heightened tensions in Europe are, rather, largely a result of the ineluctable
expansion of NATO eastward over the quarter-century since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.
Actually, NATO has doubled in size, despite a U.S. quid-pro-quo to expand NATO "one inch"
to the east of Germany.The quid required of Russia was acquiescence to a reunited Germany
within NATO and withdrawal of the 300,000-plus Russian troops stationed in East Germany.
The U.S. reneged on its quo side of the bargain as the NATO alliance added country after
country east of Germany with eyes on even more – while Russia was not strong enough to stop NATO
expansion until February 2014 when, as it turned out, NATO's eyes finally proved too big for its
stomach.A U.S.-led coup d'etat overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installed new, handpicked
leaders in Kiev who favored NATO membership.That crossed Russia's red line; it was determined – and
at that point able – to react strongly, and it did.
These are the flat-facts, contrasting with the mainstream U.S. media's propaganda about "Russian
aggression." Sadly, readers of the New York Times know little to nothing of this recent history.
Today's Russian Challenge
The existential threat to NATO comprises a different kind of Russian "threat," which owes much
to the adroitness and sang froid of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who flat-out refuses
to play his assigned role of a proper enemy – despite the Western media campaign to paint him the
devil incarnate.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28,
2015. (UN Photo)
Over time, even the most sophisticated propaganda wears thin, and more and more Europeans will
realize that NATO, in its present form, is an unnecessary, vestigial organ already a quarter-century
beyond its expiration date – and that it can flare up painfully, like a diseased appendix.At a time
when citizens of many NATO countries are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, they will
be reluctant to sink still more money into rehab for a vestigial organ.
That there are better uses for the money is already clear, and President Trump's badgering of
NATO countries to contribute ever more for defense may well backfire. Some are already asking, "Defense
against what?"Under the painful austerity that has been squeezing the Continent since the Wall Street
crash nearly a decade ago, a critical mass of European citizens is likely to be able to distinguish
reality from propaganda – and perhaps much sooner than anyone anticipates.This might eventually empower
the 99 percent, who don't stand to benefit from increased military spending to fight a phantom threat,
to insist that NATO leaders stop funding a Cold War bureaucracy that has long since outlived its
usefulness.
A military alliance normally dissolves when its raison d'etre – the military threat it was created
to confront – dissolves.The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 – more than a quarter century ago – and
with it the Warsaw Pact that was established as the military counter to NATO.
Helpful History
NATO's first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, who had been Winston Churchill's chief military assistant
during World War II, stated that NATO's purpose was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in,
and the Germans down."But a lot can change over the course of almost seven decades.
The NATO flag is raised during the opening ceremony for Exercise Steadfast Jazz in Poland, Nov.
3, 2013. (NATO photo by British army Sgt. Ian Houlding)
The Russians relinquished their East European empire after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989,
and withdrew their armed forces.There no longer needed to be a concerted priority effort to "keep
the Russians out," preoccupied as they were with fixing the economic and social mess they inherited
when the USSR fell.
As for "keeping the Germans down," it is not difficult to understand why the Russians, having
lost 25 to 27 million in WWII, were a bit chary at the prospect of a reunited Germany.Moscow's concern
was allayed somewhat by putting this new Germany under NATO command, since this sharply lessened
the chance the Germans would try to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.
But NATO became the "defensive" blob that kept growing and growing, partly because that is what
bureaucracies do (unless prevented) and partly because it became a way for U.S. presidents to show
their "toughness." By early 2008, NATO had already added ten new members – all of them many "inches"
to the east of Germany: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
There were rumors that Ukraine and Georgia were in queue for NATO membership, and Russian complaints
were becoming louder and louder.NATO relations with Russia were going to hell in a hand basket and
there was no sign the Washington policymakers gave a hoot.
A leading advocate from the Russo-phobic crowd was the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had been
President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser and remained in the forefront of those pressing
for NATO expansion – to include Ukraine.In 1998, he wrote, "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be
a Eurasian empire."
The relentless expansion of NATO greatly bothered former Sen. Bill Bradley, a longtime expert
on Russia and a sober-minded policy analyst. On Jan. 23, 2008, in
a talk before the Carnegie
Council for Ethics in International Affairs, he sounded an almost disconsolate note, describing NATO
expansion a "terribly sad thing" a "blunder of monumental proportions.
"We had won the Cold War and we kicked them [the Russians] when they were down; we expanded
NATO.In the best of circumstances it was bureaucratic inertia in NATO – people had to have a job.In
the worst of circumstances it was certain irredentist East European types, who believe Russia will
forever be the enemy and therefore we have to protect against the time when they might once again
be aggressive, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophesy."
As tensions with Russia heightened late last decade, Sen. Bradley added, "Right now we are confronted
with something that could have easily been avoided."
Finally Saying Nyet
A week after Bradley's lament, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called in U.S. Ambassador
William Burns to read him the riot act.The subject line of Burns's CONFIDENTIAL cable #182 of Feb.
1, 2008, in which he reported Lavrov's remarks to Washington shows that Burns played it straight,
choosing not to mince his own or Lavrov's words: "Nyet means nyet: Russia's NATO enlargement redlines."
NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
Here what Ambassador Burns wrote in his summary, which the public knows because the cable was
among the thousands leaked to WikiLeaks by Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, for which she was
imprisoned for seven years and only recently released (yet the cable has been essentially ignored
by the corporate U.S. news media):
"Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan at
the Bucharest summit, Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition,
stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO
enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains an emotional and neuralgic issue for Russia, but strategic
policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
"In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading
to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.
Additionally, the government of Russia and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership
would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and
bilateral relations generally."
So, it is not as though then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. policymakers were
not warned, in very specific terms, of Russia's redline on Ukrainian membership in NATO. Nevertheless,
on April 3, 2008, the final declaration from at a NATO summit in Bucharest asserted: "NATO welcomes
Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these
countries will become members of NATO."
The Ukraine Coup
Six years later, on Feb. 22, 2014, the U.S.-pushed putsch in Ukraine, which George Friedman, then
President of the think-tank STRATFOR, labeled "the most blatant coup in history," put in power a
fiercely anti-Russian regime eager to join the Western alliance.
President Barack Obama talks with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Commerce Secretary
Penny Pritzker following a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, Sept. 18, 2014. (Official White
House Photo by Pete Souza)
Russia's reaction was predictable – actually, pretty much predicted by the Russians themselves.But
for Western media and "statesmen," the Ukrainian story begins on Feb. 23, 2014, when Putin and his
advisers decided to move quickly to thwart NATO's designs on Ukraine and take back Crimea where Russia's
only warm-water naval base has been located since the days of Catherine the Great.
U.S. officials (and The New York Times) have made it
a practice to white-out the coup d'etat in Kiev and to begin recent European history with Russia's
immediate reaction, thus the relentless presentation of these events as simply "Russian aggression,"
as if Russia instigated the crisis, not the U.S.
A particularly blatant example of this came on June 30, 2016, when then U.S. Ambassador to
NATO Douglas Lute spoke at a press briefing before the NATO summit in Warsaw:
"Beginning in 2014 we're moving into a new period in NATO's long history. So the first thing
that happened in 2014 that marks this change is a newly aggressive, newly assertive Russia under
Vladimir Putin. So in late February, early March of 2014, the seizing, the occupying of Crimea followed
quickly by the illegal political annexation of Crimea. Well, any notion of strategic partnership
came to an abrupt halt in the first months of 2014."
And so, for the nonce, Western propaganda captured the narrative.How long this distortion of history
will continue is the question.The evolution of Europe as a whole (including Russia) over the past
half-century, together with the profound changes that this evolution has brought, suggest that those
of the European Establishment eager to inject life into the vestigial organ called NATO – whether
for lucrative profits from arms sales or cushy spots in NATO's far-flung bureaucracy – are living
on borrowed time.
President Trump can keep them off balance by creating uncertainty with respect to how Washington
regards its nominal NATO obligation to risk war with Russia should some loose cannon in, say, Estonia,
start a shooting match with the Russians. On balance, the uncertainty that Trump has injected may
be a good thing. Similarly, to the degree that his pressure for increased defense spending belatedly
leads to an objective estimate of the "threat" from Russia, that may be a good thing too.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. A CIA analyst for 27 years, he specialized in Russian foreign policy. He
led the CIA's Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and briefed the President's Daily Brief one-on-one during
President Ronald Reagan's first term.
"seasoned military commanders" are like the Nazis who said US
lost Vietnam because they were not patient. These "seasoned
military commanders" seek only not to lose!
While why
should anyone "follow US leadership with these type of
"seasoned military commanders"?
Iran and Pakistan without US meddling will stabilize the
place enough to link to OBOR.
The US is trying to prove you can kill enough of them to
solve their problems, for them!
America's neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S.
government and media, endanger the planet by
concocting strategies inside their heads that
ignore real-world consequences.
Thus, their "regime changes" have unleashed ancient
hatreds and spread chaos across the globe.
WASHINGTON - A new president confronts an old war, one that bedeviled his predecessor. He is
caught between seasoned military commanders, who tell him that the road to victory is to pour
in more American troops, and skeptical political advisers, who argue that a major deployment is
a futile exercise that will leave him politically vulnerable.
Barack Obama in 2009. But also Donald J. Trump in 2017.
As Mr. Trump faces his most consequential decision yet as commander in chief - whether to send
thousands more troops to Afghanistan, where a truck bombing on Wednesday offered a brutal reminder
that the 16-year-old war is far from over - his administration is divided along familiar fault
lines.
The dispute pits two generals who had formative experiences in Afghanistan - Defense Secretary
Jim Mattis and the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster - against political aides,
led by the chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who fear that sending in more troops would be
a slippery slope toward nation-building.
"They are going to be faced with the same questions we were," said David Axelrod, a former
senior Obama adviser, who worried, during the 2009 debate, that the generals were boxing his boss
in. "How and when does this end? Or is it an open-ended commitment of American lives and resources?
What will the investment produce in the long run?"
The White House shelved the deliberations over Afghanistan three weeks ago, after an initial
Pentagon proposal to deploy up to 5,000 additional American troops ran into fierce resistance
from Mr. Bannon, an ardent nationalist, and other political advisers. In the West Wing, some aides
have taken to calling Afghanistan "McMaster's war."
Undeterred, General McMaster plans to bring the debate back to the front burner this coming
week, a senior administration official said. But as he does so, the Pentagon appears to be moving
toward a smaller recommendation, in which America's allies would supply half the new troops. Historically,
the United States has supplied about two-thirds of the soldiers in Afghanistan.
That proposal depends on nailing down commitments from NATO and other allies - a task that
former officials said had gotten harder after Mr. Trump's stormy visit to Europe, where he chided
allies for not paying their fair share of the alliance's upkeep and declined to reaffirm America's
commitment to mutual defense.
"Trump has made it harder, not easier, to follow the U.S. lead," said Douglas E. Lute, a former
ambassador to NATO who advised both Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush on Afghanistan. "Questioning
U.S. leadership makes it more difficult for the allies to send troops into harm's way." ...
... Mr. Bannon, who was a powerful force behind Mr. Trump's decision to leave the Paris climate
accord, has recovered some of his influence in the wake of that debate. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's
son-in-law and adviser, remains a crucial voice, despite his troubles over reported links to Russia.
Though he has not taken a position on troops, his aides say he views his role as making sure the
president gets genuine options.
Other officials may weigh in, too. John F. Kelly, the secretary of Homeland Security and another
retired general, holds weight with Mr. Trump. His son was killed in combat in Afghanistan. Secretary
of State Rex W. Tillerson may be exerting behind-the-scenes influence already. The debate over
Afghanistan abruptly slowed down after officials at the State Department expressed concern that
General McMaster was "jamming through" a troop decision.
Still, Mr. Trump's heavy reliance on military commanders risks a repeat of what some critics
viewed as a weakness of the Obama administration's troop debate, even with Mrs. Clinton's participation:
its overemphasis on a military solution.
"This whole decision is being seen too narrowly, through a military prism," said Daniel F.
Feldman, who served as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under Mr. Obama. "It
has to be seen in a more integrated way. It requires a more aggressive diplomatic component."
... But what about the political formula? How will Afghanistan be governed after we leave?
Will it remain under its current constitution? What role will there be for the Taliban? How will
power be shared between Kabul and the provinces? How about the most troublesome neighbor, Pakistan?
What will its role be? And what can the United States do to make the answers these questions come
out in a direction that does as little harm to our interests as possible? ...
... If there is going to be a peaceful end to the war in Afghanistan unlikely as that may be,
it will come when the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan all agree on a rebalancing of the
government in Kabul, probably with a new constitution and probably either including the Taliban
in the new regime or giving the Taliban effective control of parts of southern Afghanistan in
some sort of federal system. ...
Military coups in Pakistan began in 1958 and there have been three successful attempts. There
have also been numerous unsuccessful attempts since 1951. Since its creation in 1947, Pakistan
has spent several decades under military rule (1958 – 1971, 1977 – 1988, 1999 – 2008). ... (Wikipedia)
"Questioning U.S. leadership makes it more difficult for the allies to send troops into harm's
way."
The question to be asked is why the
USA elite fights all this wars of neoliberal empire expansion at the expense of American people.
They steal money from people. Huge amount of money. In order to help multinationals. And to create
a smoke screen and justification inflate anti-Russian hysteria. Now probably 70% of Americans
are adamantly anti-Russian like in good old days of Cold War. Very convenient for stealing even
more money for MIC and multinationals: "stealing money as a patriotic duty"
Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting" - in the words of editor
Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just
glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories
about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos,
destroying freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate
us, because we're free.
Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of
the last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother
Jones or MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.
But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic
about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones
for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to
the media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation
dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee
on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation"
and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of
life. That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America,
using "terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The
way the the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same,
a meta-conspiracy run out of Moscow to weaken America.
And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.
Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including
King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early
Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild
wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones
of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording
of an interview between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama,
and a committee witness- a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling
spy novel called "The Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation,
and thereby rule the world.
Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:
"In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News,
the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting
of false or misleading items in news media.
"Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble
with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't
know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too
critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could
be working for the Russians."
Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation"
conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas
power . . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation
dupe whether they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and
who isn't a Kremlin agent.
Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,
"[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little
sense as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism.
When Mr. de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation,
the accusation is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel
law than if he were to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.
" Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then
anything must seem possible."
It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's
history.
Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their
own recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy.
Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.
PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of
RealNetworks, to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't
stand Trump or his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?
One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that
running against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem
is they didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is
driving this - donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really
is this crude.
Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and
language are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when,
it so happens, Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored
alien soldiers over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold
War propaganda line about Russian/Soviet expansionism -- a lie that has been the basis for so
many wars launched to "stop" this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is
supposed to oppose.
"... Some of those approaches essentially turned John Quincy Adams's admonition on its head by asserting that it is ..."
"... In recent years, as the ranks of the "realists" the likes of George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft have aged and thinned, the ranks of the neocons and their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, swelled. Indeed, these "anti-realists" have now grown dominant, touting themselves as morally superior because they don't just call for human rights, they take out governments that don't measure up. ..."
"... The primary distinction between the neocons and the liberal interventionists has been the centrality of Israel in the neocons' thinking while their liberal sidekicks put "humanitarianism" at the core of their world view. But these differences are insignificant, in practice, since the liberal hawks are politically savvy enough not to hold Israel accountable for its human rights crimes and clever enough to join with the neocons in easy-to-sell "regime change" strategies toward targeted countries with weak lobbies in Washington. ..."
"... Because Reagan's usurpation of human rights language involved support for brutal right-wing forces, such as the Guatemalan military and the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the process required an Orwellian change in what words meant. "Pro-democracy" had to become synonymous with the rights and profits of business owners, not its traditional meaning of making government work for the common people. ..."
"... But this perversion of language was not as much meant to fool the average Guatemalan or Nicaraguan, who was more likely to grasp the reality behind the word games since he or she saw the cruel facts up close; it was mostly to control the American people who, in the lexicon of Reagan's propagandists, needed to have their perceptions managed. ..."
"... At the time, with Great Communicator Ronald Reagan leading the way, virtually the entire U.S. mainstream media and nearly every national politician hailed the mujahedeen as noble "freedom fighters" but the reality was always much different ..."
"... By the end of the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi "covert operation" had "succeeded" in driving the Soviet army out of Afghanistan with Kabul's communist regime ultimately overthrown and replaced by the fundamentalist Taliban, who stripped women of their rights and covered up their bodies. The Taliban also provided safe haven for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist band, which by the 1990s had shifted its sights from Moscow to Washington and New York. ..."
"... Then, America's fear and fury over 9/11 opened the path for the neocons to activate one of their longstanding plans, to invade and occupy Iraq, though it had nothing to do with 9/11. The propaganda machinery was cranked up and again all the "smart" people fell in line. Dissenters were dismissed as "Saddam apologists" or called "traitors." [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War. "] ..."
"... By fall 2002, the idea of invading Iraq and removing "monster" Saddam Hussein was not just a neocon goal, it was embraced by nearly ever prominent "liberal interventionist" in the United States, including editors and columnists of the New Yorker, the New York Times and virtually every major news outlet. ..."
"... The illegal U.S.-led invasion of Iraq also brushed aside the "legal internationalists" who believed that global agreements, especially prohibitions on aggressive war, were vital to building a less violent planet. ..."
"... Chaos happens to be a strategic goal of the country to which the neocons pledge allegiance: Israel. Chaos and conflict in the ME helps Israel maintain its military superiority and offers the opportunity to expand their undefined borders to encompass the Zionist dream of Eretz Yisrael. ..."
"... What I find odd and interesting is that the neo-Nazis (who are blatantly anti-Semitic) in the Kiev government have found common cause with Jewish oligarchs, Petro Poroshenko (Valtsman) and Igor Kolomoisky. I guess power and money make strange bedfellows. ..."
"... The US is nailed by two prongs of the same disease; Globalism, and a massively-increased Zionism. ..."
"... The two most dangerous countries in the world today are the U.S. neoconed under the influence of American Zionists and I would put Israel, second to none other than the US. And, I would distinguish and separate them from Syria and Iran who are a threat to no one. ..."
"... you have to stop with this Obama vs his Neocon/Liberal Interventionist White House staff. Why are you trying to protect Obama as if he, as President, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into Lybia, Syria, or Ukraine? He seemly clearly in favor of each of these moved just as he was clearly in favor of his drone war in Pakistan and the killing of American citizens. ..."
Special Report: America's neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S. government and media,
endanger the planet by concoctingstrategies inside their heads that ignorereal-world consequences.
Thus, their"regime changes" have unleashed ancient hatreds and spread chaos across the globe, as
Robert Parry explains.
Historically, one of the main threads of U.S. foreign policy was called "realism," that is the
measured application of American power on behalf of definable national interests, with U.S. principles
preached to others but not imposed.
This approach traced back to the early days of the Republic when the first presidents warned of
foreign "entangling alliances" and President John Quincy Adams, who was with his father at the nation's
dawning, explained
in 1821 that while America speaks on behalf of liberty, "she has abstained from interference
in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to
the last vital drop that visits the heart.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her
heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."
However, in modern times, foreign policy "realism" slid into an association with a cold calculation
of power, no longer a defense of the Republic and broader national interests but of narrow, well-connected
economic interests. The language of freedom was woven into a banner for greed and plunder. Liberty
justified the imposition of dictatorships on troublesome populations. Instead of searching for monsters
to destroy, U.S. policy often searched for monsters to install.
In the wake of such heartless actions like imposing pliable "pro-business" dictatorships on countries
such as Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia, Chile and engaging in the bloodbath of Vietnam "realism"
developed a deservedly negative reputation as other supposedly more idealistic foreign policy strategies
gained preeminence.
Some of those approaches essentially turned John Quincy Adams's admonition on its head by asserting
that it is America's duty to search out foreign monsters to destroy. Whether called "neoconservatism"
or "liberal interventionism," this approach openly advocated U.S. interference in the affairs of
other nations and took the sides of people who at least presented themselves as "pro-democracy."
In recent years, as the ranks of the "realists" the likes of George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and
Brent Scowcroft have aged and thinned, the ranks of the neocons and their junior partners, the liberal
interventionists, swelled. Indeed, these "anti-realists" have now grown dominant, touting themselves
as morally superior because they don't just call for human rights, they take out governments that
don't measure up.
The primary distinction between
the neocons and the liberal interventionists has been the centrality of Israel in the neocons'
thinking while their liberal sidekicks put "humanitarianism" at the core of their world view. But
these differences are insignificant, in practice, since the liberal hawks are politically savvy enough
not to hold Israel accountable for its human rights crimes and clever enough to join with the neocons
in easy-to-sell "regime change" strategies toward targeted countries with weak lobbies in Washington.
In those "regime change" cases, there is also a consensus on how to handle the targeted countries:
start with "soft power" from anti-regime propaganda to funding internal opposition groups to economic
sanctions to political destabilization campaigns and, then if operationally necessary and politically
feasible, move to overt military interventions, applying America's extraordinary military clout.
Moral Crusades
These interventions are always dressed up as moral crusades the need to free some population from
the clutches of a U.S.-defined "monster." There usually is some "crisis" in which the "monster" is
threatening "innocent life" and triggering a "responsibility to protect" with the catchy acronym,
"R2P."
But the reality about these "anti-realists" is that their actions, in real life, almost always
inflict severe harm on the country being "rescued." The crusade kills many people innocent and guilty
and the resulting disorder can spread far and wide, like some contagion that cannot be contained.
The neocons and the liberal interventionists have become, in effect, carriers of the deadly disease
called chaos.
And, it has become a very lucrative chaos for the well-connected by advancing the "dark side"
of U.S. foreign policy where lots of money can be made while government secrecy prevents public scrutiny.
As author James Risen describes in his new book, Pay Any Price , a new caste of "oligarchs"
has emerged from the 9/11 "war on terror" - and the various regional wars that it has unpacked -
to amass vast fortunes. He writes:"There is an entire class of wealthy company owners, corporate
executives, and investors who have gotten rich by enabling the American government to turn to the
dark side. The new quiet oligarchs just keep making money. They are the beneficiaries of one of the
largest transfers of wealth from public to private hands in American history." [p. 56]
And the consolidation of this wealth has further cemented the political/media influence of the
"anti-realists," as the new "oligarchs" kick back portions of their taxpayer largesse into think
tanks, political campaigns and media outlets. The neocons and their liberal interventionist pals
now fully dominate the U.S. opinion centers, from the right-wing media to the editorial pages (and
the foreign desks) of many establishment publications, including the Washington Post and the New
York Times.
By contrast, the voices of the remaining "realists" and their current unlikely allies, the anti-war
activists, are rarely heard in the mainstream U.S. media anymore. To the extent that these dissidents
do get to criticize U.S. meddling abroad, they are dismissed as "apologists" for whatever "monster"
is currently in line for the slaughter. And, to the extent they criticize Israel, they are smeared
as "anti-Semitic" and thus banished from respectable society.
Thus, being a "realist" in today's Official Washington requires hiding one's true feelings, much
as was once the case if you were a gay man and you had little choice but to keep your sexual orientation
in the closet by behaving publicly like a heterosexual and surrounding yourself with straight friends.
In many ways, that's what President Barack Obama has done. Though arguably
a "closet realist," Obama staffed his original administration with foreign policy officials acceptable
to the neocons and the liberal interventionists, such as Robert Gates at Defense, Hillary Clinton
at State, Gen. David Petraeus as a top commander in the field.
Even in his second term, the foreign-policy hawks have remained dominant, with people like neocon
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland enflaming the crisis in Ukraine
and UN Ambassador Samantha Power, an R2Per, pushing U.S. military intervention in Syria.
A Slow-Motion Catastrophe
I have personally watched today's foreign-policy pattern evolve during my 37 years in Washington
- and it began innocently enough. After the Vietnam War and the disclosures about bloody CIA coups
around the globe, President Jimmy Carter called for human rights to be put at the center of U.S.
foreign policy. His successor, Ronald Reagan, then hijacked the human rights rhetoric while adapting
to it to his anticommunist cause.
Because Reagan's usurpation of human rights language involved support for brutal right-wing
forces, such as the Guatemalan military and the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the process required an
Orwellian change in what words meant. "Pro-democracy" had to become synonymous with the rights and
profits of business owners, not its traditional meaning of making government work for the common
people.
But this perversion of language was not as much meant to fool the average Guatemalan or Nicaraguan,
who was more likely to grasp the reality behind the word games since he or she saw the cruel facts
up close; it was mostly to control the American people who, in the lexicon of Reagan's propagandists,
needed to have their perceptions managed. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Victory of Perception Management. "]
The goal of the young neocons inside the Reagan administration the likes of Elliott Abrams and
Robert Kagan (now Victoria Nuland's husband) was to line up the American public behind Reagan's aggressive
foreign policy, or as the phrase of that time went, to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome," meaning to end
the popular post-Vietnam resistance to more foreign wars.
President George H.W. Bush pronounced this mission accomplished in 1991 after the end of the well-sold
Persian Gulf War, declaring "we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."
By then, the propaganda process had fallen into a predictable pattern. You pick out a target country;
you demonize its leadership; you develop some "themes" that are sure to push American hot buttons,
maybe fictional stories about "throwing babies out of incubators" or the terrifying prospect of "a
mushroom cloud"; and it's always smart to highlight a leader's personal corruption, maybe his "designer
glasses" or "a sauna in his palace."
The point is not that the targeted leader may not be an unsavory character. Frankly, most political
leaders are. Many Western leaders and their Third World allies both historically and currently have
much more blood on their hands than some of the designated "monsters" that the U.S. government has
detected around the world. The key is the image-making.
What makes the process work is the application and amplification of double standards through the
propaganda organs available to the U.S. government. The compliant mainstream American media can be
counted on to look harshly at the behavior of some U.S. "enemy" in Venezuela, Iran, Russia or eastern
Ukraine, but to take a much more kindly view of a U.S.-favored leader from Colombia, Saudi Arabia,
Georgia or western Ukraine.
While it's easy and safe career-wise for a mainstream journalist to accuse a Chavez, an Ahmadinejad,
a Putin or a Yanukovych of pretty much anything, the levels of proof get ratcheted up when it's a
Uribe, a Saudi King Abdullah, a Saakashvili or a Yatsenyuk not to mention a Netanyahu.
The True Dark Side
But here is the dark truth about this "humanitarian" interventionism: it is spinning the world
into an endless cycle of violence. Rather than improving the prospects for human rights and democracy,
it is destroying those goals. While the interventionist strategies have made huge fortunes for well-connected
government contractors and well-placed speculators who profit off chaos, the neocons and their "human
rights" buddies are creating a hell on earth for billions of others, spreading death and destitution.
Take, for example, the beginnings of the Afghan War in the 1980s after the Soviet Union invaded
to protect a communist-led regime that had sought to pull Afghanistan out of the middle ages, including
granting equal rights to women. The United States responded by encouraging Islamic fundamentalism
and arming the barbaric mujahedeen.
At the time, that was considered the smart play because Islamic fundamentalism was seen as a force
that could counter atheistic communism. So, starting with the Carter administration but getting dramatically
ramped up by the Reagan administration, the United States threw in its lot with the extremist Wahhabis
of Saudi Arabia to invest billions of dollars in supporting these Islamist militants who included
one wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden.
At the time, with Great Communicator Ronald Reagan leading the way, virtually the entire U.S.
mainstream media and nearly every national politician hailed the mujahedeen as noble "freedom fighters"
but the reality was always much different . [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's "
How US Hubris Baited Afghan Trap ."]
By the end of the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi "covert operation" had "succeeded" in driving the
Soviet army out of Afghanistan with Kabul's communist regime ultimately overthrown and replaced by
the fundamentalist Taliban, who stripped women of their rights and covered up their bodies. The Taliban
also provided safe haven for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist band, which by the 1990s had shifted
its sights from Moscow to Washington and New York.
Even though the Saudis officially broke with bin Laden after he declared his intentions to attack
the United States, some wealthy Saudis and other Persian Gulf multi-millionaires, who shared bin
Laden's violent form of Islamic fundamentalism, continued to fund him and his terrorists right up
to and beyond al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11.
Then, America's fear and fury over 9/11 opened the path for the neocons to activate one of
their longstanding plans, to invade and occupy Iraq, though it had nothing to do with 9/11. The propaganda
machinery was cranked up and again all the "smart" people fell in line. Dissenters were dismissed
as "Saddam apologists" or called "traitors." [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War. "]
By fall 2002, the idea of invading Iraq and removing "monster" Saddam Hussein was not just
a neocon goal, it was embraced by nearly ever prominent "liberal interventionist" in the United States,
including editors and columnists of the New Yorker, the New York Times and virtually every major
news outlet.
At this point, the "realists" were in near total eclipse, left to grumble futilely or grasp onto
some remaining "relevance" by joining the pack, as Henry Kissinger did. The illegal U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq also brushed aside the "legal internationalists" who believed that global agreements,
especially prohibitions on aggressive war, were vital to building a less violent planet.
... ... ...
Pablo Diablo , January 17, 2015 at 7:06 pm
THANK YOU Robert Parry for all you have done. Money! It's always money. Wake up America. They
gave us Clinton to accomplish what mean-spirited Reagan/Bush couldn't accomplish. And then they
gave us Obama to continue what Bush/Cheney started.
Well put Zachary Smith. Shaking these compromised criminals from their lofty posts and kicking
them to the curb may seem like a monumental task, but the sea tide of change is definitely turning
in our favor. There is much talk about the neocons, Israel, Zionism, and the Lobby's influence
in the US government than ever before. They are everywhere!
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/01/18/514568obama-to-senators-choose-u-s-over-donors/
Steve D , January 17, 2015 at 8:16 pm
When will the neocons be brought up on crimes against humanity ? May all blowback be brought
down upon them.
This is a good summary, necessarily burdened by the lengthy history of "neocon" madness since
WWII. But of course the wrongful and ill-conceived US interventions are far more numerous even
than those mentioned here.
There will be no rational US foreign or domestic policy until democracy is restored, when the
mass media and elections are protected from the control of the oligarch of economic concentrations
that denies democracy to the people of the United States. This was the great oversight of our
Constitution, because no such economic concentrations existed then, and amendments are desperately
needed to correct this. Without them democracy, and sanity in public policy, are lost forever.
The morally corrosive effects of government propaganda are accepted largely because the population
is accustomed to lies in advertising and all business communications. The people are no longer
outraged that the government does nothing to control business lies and cheating, and it is not
surprising that the parties of bold government lies are the advocates of unregulated business.
But the prospects for reform are grim. Only an era of vast suffering in the US will make the
people turn off their TVs and admit the truth. One cannot wish for the suffering, but anything
to hasten the deposing of oligarchy is an act of the highest patriotism.
I concur. The question is why a large majority of the American people go along with this entire
exercise? And when did it all start? I wrote this in 2009 soon after Obama took office, it still
resonates: Can Obama escape the dominating influence of AIPAC and the American Jewish/Zionist
Israeli lobby?
The exercise of control over elections and mass media began quite early, grew as the US middle
class emerged and had to rely on ever-larger newspapers for policy facts, and as political candidates
relied ever more on purchased publicity and contributions from ever growing businesses seeking
federal favors. By 1898 we had our first media-trumped war ("Remember the Maine") over a falsely
attributed coal-gas explosion on a US warship.
Chet Roman , January 18, 2015 at 2:26 am
"The neocons and the liberal interventionists have become, in effect, carriers of the
deadly disease called chaos."
Chaos happens to be a strategic goal of the country to which the neocons pledge allegiance:
Israel. Chaos and conflict in the ME helps Israel maintain its military superiority and offers
the opportunity to expand their undefined borders to encompass the Zionist dream of Eretz Yisrael.
What I find odd and interesting is that the neo-Nazis (who are blatantly anti-Semitic)
in the Kiev government have found common cause with Jewish oligarchs, Petro Poroshenko (Valtsman)
and Igor Kolomoisky. I guess power and money make strange bedfellows.
The US is nailed by two prongs of the same disease; Globalism, and a massively-increased
Zionism.
Real intellectuals know this. It isn't exactly a conspiracy.
The two most dangerous countries in the world today are the U.S. neoconed under the influence
of American Zionists and I would put Israel, second to none other than the US. And, I would distinguish
and separate them from Syria and Iran who are a threat to no one.
So much for humanitarian causes. Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Why didn't they
just keep on bombing them until every single one was killed in the name of humanity?
It would make about as much humanitarian sense.
Now, let;s see¦. Who is next on the list?
“Abe, bring me that book by the old man " who do we go for next?"
The real question is who will we send to do the job? NATO or the UN? UN troops are better at
rape and pillage, but NATO is much more impressive in the straight out killing line! Both are
cheap and ready to go, and we will not have to do it ourselves.
Tsigantes , January 18, 2015 at 4:02 am
Re your penultimate paragraph, and from a European vantage point, far from 'failing to foresee'
the results, it appears that the neocons understand them full well and feel confidant in their
ability to control them. ISIS is understood here as a US funded and propogandised mercenary army,
with non-muslim participants from all over Europe & Asia. As for the true Wahhabi fundamentalists
one assumes that the logic is that they are contained inside ISIS, while carrying out US foreign
policy goals.
As for ultimate carrots, ie rewarding the fundamentalists, the New Middle East plan unveiled
in 2006 by Condaleeza Rice and Olmert as NATO/ISR policy (not contradicted since then, and clearly
underway) projected the division of Iraq into 3 states, one of which is Islamic State [IS} and
the other Kurdistan. It also projected the division of Pakistan with the new state being Baluchistan.
Thus ISIS and Al Qaeda become client states.
Therefore there is reason to this destructive, illegal madness which has served to destroy
the United States' reputation globally; the reconfiguration of the middle east serves US and Israeli
oil and security interests.
Unfortunately no such plan can be referenced concerning Russia. However events of recent years,
especially 2014 and Charlie Hebdo, have served to reveal the degree to which the EU is US/ISR
neocon dominated, and are absolutely NOT free nations.
re: "What the neocons have constructed through their skilled propaganda is a grim wonderland
where no one foresees the dangers of encouraging Islamist fundamentalism as a geopolitical ploy,
where no one takes heed of the historic hatreds of Sunni and Shiite, where no one suspects that
the U.S. military slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Muslims might provoke a backlash, where
no one thinks about the consequences of overthrowing regimes in unstable regions, where no one
bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about spreading
turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia."
Tsigante , January 18, 2015 at 4:16 am
i would add to my comment above that the majority of world muslims, Sunni & Shiite, are NOT
at loggerheads with each other, live next to each other and are often intermarried. This is a
theological split, like Protestants (no priest=Sunni) vs Catholics (priests=Catholic).
The exception is the 18th c local & extreme Wahhabi sect, which the British empowered when
they created Saudi Arabia. Far from being closer to islamic principles, they are closer to (dare
I say it) barbaric desert Arab practise, overlaid into a local form of Islam.
In the case of Iraq the Sunni-Shiite division was political, put in place by the English again,
when they empowered one group over the other as administrators.
Branko R , January 18, 2015 at 6:24 am
Robert's excellent summary overlooks the wars in the former Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Kosovo). The same sorts of unsavory characters were backed and whitewashed, and the same sorts
of humanitarian propaganda were used.
Alan Fendrich , January 18, 2015 at 7:23 am
You write "Israeli war crimes." What Israeli war crimes have there been?
Is not the real crime the Arab regimes crime against humanity? Poisoning their children in their
school curriculum that Jews are dogs? And that killing Jews is good?
Truth , January 18, 2015 at 11:20 am
What Israeli War Crimes?
Wow. You outed yourself right there as a Hasbarite liar.
Zachary Smith , January 18, 2015 at 11:38 am
What Israeli war crimes have there been?
The very best 'spin' I can put on this statement is that you were in a coma during the recent
Israeli mass murder spree in Gaza.
The worst is that you're posting from the basement of a West Bank house on land stolen from
Palestinians. If this is the case, may I suggest you read up on efficiently lying for Holy Israel.
They have published several manuals for enthusiastic amateurs, and here is a link to the latest
one.
It never stops boring our ears this Zionist propaganda. Which "Arabs" are you talking about
you Zionist bigot? Which, Arab Jews, Christians or Muslims? Do you mean the Jewish Arabs who have
historically lived in peace and protection for centuries with the Muslim Arabs before Mongoloids
showed up from Eastern Europe? The ones who live now in the foremost democracy in the world Irahell?
Are they the ones that do not have the right to a minimum wage?
The "Arabs" never referred in their children's school books to Jews. They always without exception
refer to them as Zionist knowing full well that the founders of the "Jewish State" were without
exception atheists.
I predict Zionist will succeed in starting a third world war between Islam and Christianity
on one hand and between Eurasia and the West on the other. You have corrupted the democratic process
in the West and the media belongs to you. Additionally, let us not forget that there is too much
money to be made and national debts to be incurred for Zionist to worry about such an unprecedented
degree of human sacrifice in the name of Moloch.
You know what is a Freudian slip? The manifesto of the Zionist state is to extend itself from
the Nile to the Euphrates and to rule the world from Jerusalem just like a Caliphate. It will
be called, The State of Israel for Iraq and the Levant. I.S.I.L for short. It will never happen
for the children of Moloch.
Israeli veterans have spoken out, describing a degrading culture of abuse and harassment of Palestinian
children in the West Bank and Gaza. A report containing 30 veterans' testimonies details numerous
cases of violence.
I agree the President should come out of the closet. An excellent summary of what I have witnessed
this past half century. To the extent I fail to act to halt the mass murder, I am a silent accomplice
and share in the kharma perpetrated in the name of my country. Never, never, never surrender.
I never thought I would say that about the government I was raised to adore, but it appears populated
by petty tyrants and hucksters. But that is the story, our history, until the Millenials rrach
true majority in a generation. Let's see how the pendulum is swinging then.
Barry , January 19, 2015 at 7:45 pm
Come on, Robert. Overall, this was a great article. However, you have to stop with this
Obama vs his Neocon/Liberal Interventionist White House staff. Why are you trying to protect Obama
as if he, as President, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into Lybia, Syria, or Ukraine? He
seemly clearly in favor of each of these moved just as he was clearly in favor of his drone war
in Pakistan and the killing of American citizens.
Paul Craig Roberts views Zbigniew Brzezinski through the rose glasses. In reality Zbig
Russophobia was based on that same desire to dominate the globe that had driven British elite to
Russophobia before. Plus desire of MIC to preserve its size and profits and return to
the good old days of Cold War. The US militarism is business driven militarism, which makes it even more dangerious.
Notable quotes:
"... The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev. This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget. ..."
"... Despite 16 years of Washington's wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, the "Muslim threat" does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected. ..."
"... Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia. ..."
"... The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction. ..."
"... The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as "Russian agents," "anti-semites," and "conspiracy theorists." When you hear a source called a "Russian agent," an "anti-semite," or a "conspiracy theorist," you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell you the truth. ..."
"... The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American military/security complex's need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon. ..."
I think that the "Soviet Threat," the basis for the Cold War, was a hoax. It was created by the military/security
complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us to no effect. The patriotic war movies, the patriotic
Memorial Days and July 4ths with emotional thanks to those who died "saving our freedoms," which
were never in danger from the Japanese and Germans, only from our own government, succeeded in brainwashing
even National Security Advisors. Little wonder the insouciance of the American population today.
The Cold War was an orchestration of the military/security complex, and there are many victims.
Brzezinski was a victim as the Cold War was his life. JFK was a victim as he lost his life to it.
The Vietnamese, who died in the millions, were victims The photo of the naked young Vietnamese girl
fleeing down the road in terror from the American napham behind her made us aware that the Cold War
had many innocent victims. The Soviet troops sent to Afghanistan were victims as were the Afghans
themselves.
The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev.
This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US
military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget.
Treading water while looking for a new justification for bleeding the American taxpayer, the military/security
complex had President Clinton declare the US to be the World Policeman and to destroy Yugoslavia
in the name of "human rights." With Israeli and neoconservative input, the military/security complex
used 9/11 to create the "Muslim Terrorist Threat." This hoax has now murdered, maimed, dispossessed,
and displaced millions of Muslims in seven countries.
Despite 16 years of Washington's wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria,
Yemen and Afghanistan, the "Muslim threat" does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security
annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected.
The Muslim Threat was never a danger to the US. It is only a danger to Washington's European vassal
states, who had to accept millions of Muslim refugees from Washington's wars. However, the newly
created Russian Threat is a threat to every American as well as to every European.
Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing
nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military
has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia.
This dire Russian announcement received no western press coverage. No high official of any Western
government, Trump included, called Putin to give reassurances that no such attack on Russia was being
planned.
So, what happens next time when a false alarm, such as the one Brzezinski received, is received
by his counterpart in Moscow or the National Security Council? Will the animosities resurrected by
the evil US military/security complex result in the Russians or the US believing the false signal?
The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate
that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction.
The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as "Russian agents," "anti-semites," and "conspiracy
theorists." When you hear a source called a "Russian agent," an "anti-semite," or a "conspiracy theorist,"
you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell
you the truth.
The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American
military/security complex's need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is
this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire
world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon.
"... The State Department and various other government agencies regularly label Iran the world's leading "state sponsor of terrorism" - and that couldn't sound more menacing or impressively official and authoritative. Yet to tag Iran as #1 on any terror list is misleading indeed. The questions worth asking are: Which terrorists? What constitutes terrorism? Do those "terror" outfits truly threaten the U.S. homeland? ..."
"... Iran does support Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. However, lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah with genuine global jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is deceptive, often purposely so. The Lebanon-based Hezbollah, for example, is largely fixated on Israel, but has sometimes even fought ISIS in Lebanon and Syria. In other words, Hezbollah, though it had previously attacked U.S. troops in the region, isn't sending its operatives to crash planes into American buildings. ..."
"... Is there any country in the world that holds favorable view of Amerrican government ? Yes, there are plenty but those countries also happen to have an enemy next door which is despised or treated harshly by America . India has, do has Ukraine. Montenegro, and possibly Vietnam . ..."
"... Libyans and Syrians before the current turmoil had very favorable attitudes to the west and US. Iranian should learn from it . ..."
"... Question is can any country trust America ? Yes they love Hollywood and Microsoft and Facebook . But one way to look at this dichotomy is that American government doesn't live up to the virtues inherent in those innovations ..."
"... It's not hysteria it's 'controlled agitation' by the Neocon Zionist Cabal that runs our foreign policy and not so bright generals like 'slurpy dog' Mattis. ..."
"... Correct : Israel considers Iran to be its #1 enemy. Therefore Iran must be the #1 enemy of the USA as well. ..."
"... The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign policy. A lot can be learned from examining the origins of and the reasons for this irrationality, and the identities of those who act to promote and sustain it and how they achieve their propagandist goals. ..."
"... By and large, Iran's enemies in the US are also the enemies of liberty, of sovereignty and of honesty in foreign policy: the likes of John McCain, as noted, and most of the bipartisan advocates of aggressive interventionist war-making, whether the R2P "humanitarian" types of the "left" or the America-uber-alles militarists of the "right", along with the Israeli and Saudi dual loyalty or foreign loyalty types. ..."
"... Iran is just another CIA boogie man, what have they ever done to America – NOTHING! As where America has absolutely fucked the arse off them. It always amazes me that a Country as successful as America can have so many stupid gullible Citizens. ..."
"... It is not like we hadn't been poking the Iranians for decades before the revolutionaries took our Embassy, and we certainly have been poking them ever since, so it is hard to begrudge them for opening a little Reagan-doctrine on our US asses when we stick our noses into their neighbors' businesses while making loud noises about how we might come after them next. ..."
"... BTW, Iran and Syria at least before we stuck our noses into it both had large Jewish and Christian communities living relatively unmolested. Who of our allies in the ME can make the same claim? ..."
"... In sum, U.S. policy in the Middle East is confused, contradictory, counterproductive, and dangerous. ..."
"... And another thing, too, which I don't ever recall hearing back in the Vietnam era is this robotic "muh brothers, muh mission" stuff, where everyone in a uniform is a "hero" who should be "thanked for his service," especially if he was one of the "boots on the ground." I've been there and through it, I've had this one-sided militarism up to my eyeballs at this point, and see this business of glorifying our soldiers and demonizing the countries this country is Balkanizing for Israel as unAmerican brainwashing. ..."
"... Let's not forget that back in the Vietnam era, at a time when our military wasn't serving Israel, the father's of today's neocons were not only not serving up this militaristic jingoism, but calling the fathers of today's soldiers "baby killers." ..."
"... Whether the Iranians have a wonderful democracy or are a horrible dictatorship is beside the point. They're going to defend themselves and will get involved in all parts of the region to prevent becoming vulnerable and thus open to attack. They have the geography, size and human resources to do so and will do so. It's arguable that they're the natural hegemon of the region and that far-away outsiders like the US can only thwart that for a limited period of time. ..."
"... I disagree with Mr Sjursen's premise that anti-Iran hysteria is irrational. It is perfectly rational from the perspective of the political class, particularly our craven Congress long ago called "Israeli-occupied territory" by Pat Buchanan. Moreover, it is perfectly rational for the Israel lobby and the entire Jewish influenced mainstream media and neoconservative infrastructure. And let us not forget that General Butler reminded us that war is a racket and the military-industrial complex benefits greatly. ..."
"... The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. ..."
"... "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!" ..."
"... However, when discussing the matter in general terms, it is not really credible to deny that many of the shia militias did get very substantial support (including military training and assistance, and most likely manufactured military hardware items such as the EFPs, or the designs and funding to manufacture them locally) from Iran. Iran would have been very foolish not to have done so. It was the clear intention of the US regime, if they had succeeded in imposing a compliant collaboration regime on Iraq, to attack Iran next. ..."
"... Though of course it was the sunni insurgents funded by the US's Gulf "allies" whom the American occupiers were fighting most of the time, and Iran certainly wasn't behind them. ..."
"... But seriously, who profited the most from the 11 trillion (your estimate, not mine) spent in those wars? You have to do forensic analysis of who actually owns the stocks in those companies to find out who has gotten the dough ..."
"... I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it just doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not like we, the Elites are paying for it) ..."
"... No country snubs the US and gets away with it! Cuba tried and has paid the penalty for 40 years. Iran tried and succeeded and the US has never forgotten. You don't insult the Mafia and get away with it. ..."
"... Iran shows the power of the Jewish control over America Hate of Iran is what the "tribe" has overtly pushed for, but to be sure there is much much more they have slipped into our consciousness we are not so aware of. ..."
"... The claims made about Iran (seeking nuclear weapons with aggressive intent, being likely to "dominate the region", being a threat to the US itself or even to legitimate US interests, etc) are mostly literally irrational in that they are untrue and illogical, relying upon simple falsehoods and distortions of reality. ..."
"... But it is certainly arguably rational for those with personal loyalties to Israel or to Saudi Arabia etc, or to other enemies or rivals of Iran, or for those with personal selfish interests in promoting confrontation and war (military industrial types, bought and paid for politicians, etc) to try to persuade Americans in general, and especially American politicians and media/opinion leaders, that these irrationalities are in fact honest descriptions of reality. ..."
"... "The brilliant George Bernard Shaw once said that one could use three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Nazism. He argued that if a person was intelligent, and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi. ..."
It certainly is a land in which hardline fundamentalists chant "Death to America!" It's also a country
with an increasingly
young , educated populace that holds remarkably
positive views
of Americans. In fact, whatever you might imagine, Americans tend to have significantly more
negative views of Iran
than vice versa. Don't be shocked, but Iranians hold more positive views of the U.S. government than
do the citizens of Washington's
allies like Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. In reality, there's long been a worrying paradox in the
region: an inverse relationship between the amiability of a government's relationship with Washington
and the favorability ratings of this country among its people.
In other words, when it comes to Iran well, it's complicated. The trouble is that Americans generally
don't do nuance. We like our bad guys to be foreign and unmistakably vile, even if such a preference
for digestible simplicity makes for poor policy.
If you want to grasp this point more fully, just think about Secretary of Defense Mattis's recent
statement again. He assures us that Iran's shadow hovers over every regional crisis in the
Middle East, which is empirically false. Here, for instance, are just a few recent conflicts that
Iran is not behind or where its role has been exaggerated:
The Arab Spring and the subsequent chaos in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Iran didn't start or
significantly influence the uprisings in those countries.
Turkey's decades-long
war with separatist
Kurds in its southeast provinces. Again, not Iran.
The ongoing spread of al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria and on the
Arabian Peninsula
. Iran actually abhors such groups, and certainly wasn't behind their rise.
Or, if you want, take Yemen, since supposed Iranian meddling in the Middle East's
poorest
state happens to be one of the favorite drums Washington's Iranophobic hawks like to
beat
. And yet a range of credible
reports suggest that the
much-decried collusion between Iran and the Houthi rebels, who are the focus of the Saudi war
in that country, is highly exaggerated.
Look, Iran is a significant, if often thwarted and embattled, regional power and a player, sometimes
even a destabilizing one, in various regional conflagrations. It supports proxies, funds partner
states, and sometimes intervenes in the region, even sending in its own military units (think Syria).
Then again, so does Saudi Arabia (Yemen and, in funding terms, elsewhere), the United Arab Emirates
(Yemen), Russia (Syria), and the United States (more or less everywhere). So who's destabilizing
whom and why almost invariably turns out to be a matter of perspective.
The State Department and various other government agencies regularly
label Iran the world's leading "state sponsor of terrorism" - and that couldn't sound more menacing
or impressively official and authoritative. Yet to tag Iran as #1 on any terror list is misleading
indeed. The questions worth asking are: Which terrorists? What constitutes terrorism? Do those "terror"
outfits truly threaten the U.S. homeland?
As a start, in 2016, the State Department's annual survey of worldwide terrorism
labeled ISIS - not Iran, Hezbollah, or the Houthis - as "the greatest [terror]
threat globally." How do we square that "greatest sponsor" stamp with an Iran that has proven both
thoroughly hostile to and deeply
invested in the fight against ISIS and various al-Qaeda-linked groups in Iraq and Syria?
Iran does support Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. However,
lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah with genuine global jihadist
groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is deceptive, often purposely so. The
Lebanon-based Hezbollah, for example, is largely fixated on Israel, but has sometimes even
fought
ISIS in Lebanon and Syria. In other words, Hezbollah, though it had previously
attacked
U.S. troops in the region, isn't sending its operatives to crash planes into American buildings.
To think of it another way, more foreign ISIS volunteers
hail
from Belgium or the Maldives Islands than from Iran. In fact, most of the top
sources
of ISIS's foreign recruits (Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan) turn out to be "friendly"
American "partners." From 1975 to 2015, Iranian-born terrorists
inflicted zero deaths in attacks on U.S. soil. In contrast, citizens of key U.S. allies - Saudis,
Egyptians, and Lebanese -
killed thousands on 9/11. In fact, since then,
85% of domestic terrorists turned out to be American citizens or permanent residents. Most were
American-born. Of the 13 U.S. citizens involved in such fatal terror attacks, none were Iranian-American.
The inverse relationship that you mention is the kicker here . Once the citizen of a country
comes to see America through the policies of America, hatred doesn't lag far behind to show up
on the dinner table discussion.
Is there any country in the world that holds favorable view of Amerrican government ? Yes,
there are plenty but those countries also happen to have an enemy next door which is despised
or treated harshly by America . India has, do has Ukraine. Montenegro, and possibly Vietnam .
Iran is not saint But so was never any country .
Libyans and Syrians before the current turmoil had very favorable attitudes to the west
and US. Iranian should learn from it .
Question is can any country trust America ? Yes they love Hollywood and Microsoft and Facebook
. But one way to look at this dichotomy is that American government doesn't live up to the virtues
inherent in those innovations .
It's not hysteria it's 'controlled agitation' by the Neocon Zionist Cabal that runs our
foreign policy and not so bright generals like 'slurpy dog' Mattis.
In 1911 GB and Russia destroyed Iran democracy, in 1953 the USA did it again.
In 1979, after the USA Vietnam disaster, Islam succeeded in liberating Iran from the USA puppet
Shah.
Then the USA brought Saddam to power, in order to subjugate Iran.
Three million deaths, but Saddam failed to do what he should have done.
On top of the that, the sorcerer's apprentice had the idea he no longer was an apprentice, in
2000 he had the audacity to ask euro's for Iraq oil.
That, some say, was his death warrant.
The USA engineered the 'new Pearl Harbour' Sept 11, war could begin.
It is still going on.
So when here a USA soldier complains about Iran, I just can laugh.
The Bushmen burned some 2000 tons of uranium over Iraq, that for the next 5000 years will cause
cancers and birth defects.
W. Morgan Shuster, ´The strangling of Persia, Story of the European diplomacy and oriental
intrigue that resulted in the denationalisation of twelve million Mohammedans', New York, 1912
Roy Mottahedeh, 'The Mantle of the Prophet, Religion and Politics in Iran', Oxford, 1985,
2000
Alan Friedman, 'Spider's Web, Bush, Saddam, Thatcher and the Decade of Deceit', London,
1993
@KA
I love neither Hollywood, nor Microsoft or Facebook.
Hollywood is just USA propaganda, Microsoft is the best swindle ever, one can only escape through
Linux, Facebook is a waste of time, and exhibitionism.
I do not think there is anything wrong with USA citizens in general, all is wrong with USA
society, no democracy, a moneycracy wasting USA resources in war without end.
Maybe Trump sees how these wars ruin the USA, how Khazakstan is more and more becoming the
economic centre of the world.
There now operates the enormous train hub, connecting China by rail to Europe.
The Berlin Baghdad railway is seen as the cause of WWI, let us hope that the China Europe railway
will not cause WWIII.
Excellent stuff! A very unusually grownup and rational assessment of the situation, coming
from any American.
The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US
elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign
policy. A lot can be learned from examining the origins of and the reasons for this irrationality,
and the identities of those who act to promote and sustain it and how they achieve their propagandist
goals.
By and large, Iran's enemies in the US are also the enemies of liberty, of sovereignty
and of honesty in foreign policy: the likes of John McCain, as noted, and most of the bipartisan
advocates of aggressive interventionist war-making, whether the R2P "humanitarian" types of the
"left" or the America-uber-alles militarists of the "right", along with the Israeli and Saudi
dual loyalty or foreign loyalty types.
However, lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah [and Hamas]
with genuine global jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is
deceptive, often purposely so.
Gosh, who could it possibly be that has an interest in lying to promote this particular falsehood,
and the media and political "influence" in US society to do so successfully?
The persistent and profound basic irrationality of much US elite and popular opinion on the
topic of Iran has been an aspect of world affairs that I noted and wondered about a couple of
decades ago or so, and I ultimately came to the conclusion that the best explanations for its
existence and persistence were the toxic combination of:
1. Undue political and media influence from Iran's regional rivals, Israel and Saudi Arabia,
whose interests the paranoid US fear and hatred of Iran clearly serve;
2. Lingering soreness about the US getting some much-deserved payback from Iranians at the
time of the hostage crisis, and on several occasions since, for decades of bloody interference
in Iranian affairs;
3. Simple outrage at the sight of a medium sized developing country daring not to breathlessly
ask "how high, sir?", when told to jump by Washington.
2 & 3 mostly serve to provide ammunition for the liars and propagandists of 1 to work with.
Iran is just another CIA boogie man, what have they ever done to America – NOTHING! As
where America has absolutely fucked the arse off them. It always amazes me that a Country as successful
as America can have so many stupid gullible Citizens.
As the recipient of Iranian-sponsored hostility in Beirut in 1983, I was not well disposed
toward its regime for some time thereafter, but I got over it as time went on. I think I was well
over it by the time the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner while, ostensibly, it may
have been in Iranian waters, killing 290 civilians.
It is not like we hadn't been poking the Iranians for decades before the revolutionaries
took our Embassy, and we certainly have been poking them ever since, so it is hard to begrudge
them for opening a little Reagan-doctrine on our US asses when we stick our noses into their neighbors'
businesses while making loud noises about how we might come after them next.
BTW, Iran and Syria at least before we stuck our noses into it both had large Jewish
and Christian communities living relatively unmolested. Who of our allies in the ME can make the
same claim?
In sum, U.S. policy in the Middle East is confused, contradictory, counterproductive,
and dangerous.
Confused? Not when you understand just who is "managing" US foreign policy, and to what end.
Contradictory? Only when considering some official statements, but those are just throw away words
meant for debate by the talking legs on the news channels, or things you read about in CIA conduits
such as the Washington Post–things just mean to obfuscate. Counterproductive? Depends on one's
long-term goal. Dangerous. Certainly.
I was an f.o. with recon the last six months of my tour in Vietnam (1-6/70) and thankful that,
while we were occasionally inserted into hot LZ's in that time, once we were on the ground we
were on our own and never trapped like sitting ducks for hours in a glorified SUV. My take is
that this fellow ought to be blaming the Army and Pentagon and not Iran for setting him and his
platoon up for the sort of inevitable ambush he describes.
And another thing, too, which I don't ever recall hearing back in the Vietnam era is this
robotic "muh brothers, muh mission" stuff, where everyone in a uniform is a "hero" who should
be "thanked for his service," especially if he was one of the "boots on the ground." I've been
there and through it, I've had this one-sided militarism up to my eyeballs at this point, and
see this business of glorifying our soldiers and demonizing the countries this country is Balkanizing
for Israel as unAmerican brainwashing.
Let's not forget that back in the Vietnam era, at a time when our military wasn't serving
Israel, the father's of today's neocons were not only not serving up this militaristic jingoism,
but calling the fathers of today's soldiers "baby killers."
Those EFPs and the requisite training to use them were provided to Iraqi militias by the
Islamic Republic of Iran. ..
Still, there's one major problem with bold, sweeping pronouncements (laced with one's own
prejudices)
There's also a problem with stating unlikely scenarios (if not patent absurdities) as facts.
What is your evidence that Iran provided EFPs and training to Iraqi militias?
Mattis' statement is easily trashed as simple-minded and delusional. So what's the conclusion?
That there are many who are in a position to influence policy are incompetent and downright stupid?
Apparently that's the case and breathtakingly so. Everyone seems to have this huge blind spot
where they automatically accept that the US has the right to travel thousands of miles around
the world to engage in warfare with whatever country they please yet a country right next door
has no right to get involved. It's strange to hear people whine about the Iranians getting involved
in their own region by training militiamen or showing them how to build better explosive weapons,
all of which is very basic low-tech stuff that could be shown on a DVD, whereas the Americans
are using space-age jet fighters and tanks as well as the much touted SEAL soldiers. Want to trade
weapons?
Whether the Iranians have a wonderful democracy or are a horrible dictatorship is beside
the point. They're going to defend themselves and will get involved in all parts of the region
to prevent becoming vulnerable and thus open to attack. They have the geography, size and human
resources to do so and will do so. It's arguable that they're the natural hegemon of the region
and that far-away outsiders like the US can only thwart that for a limited period of time.
I find it very interesting that one day the Iraqis are on the verge of making a nuclear weapon
and the next day, according to the author, they are unable to make a shaped charge, technology
that has been around at least since the Germans blasted their way into Fort Eben-Emael.
I disagree with Mr Sjursen's premise that anti-Iran hysteria is irrational. It is perfectly
rational from the perspective of the political class, particularly our craven Congress long ago
called "Israeli-occupied territory" by Pat Buchanan. Moreover, it is perfectly rational for the
Israel lobby and the entire Jewish influenced mainstream media and neoconservative infrastructure.
And let us not forget that General Butler reminded us that war is a racket and the military-industrial
complex benefits greatly.
Working Class Native Born White American Teenage Males who sign a US Army Military contract
are signing their lives away to be used as canon fodder for the Jewish State of Israel wars af
aggression in the Middle East You will die a very painful pointless meaningless death in some
Muslim hell-hole in the Middle East It's just not worth it
Something like 11 trillion of our tax dollars have been spent destroying the civilian populations
of several Muslim Nations in the Middle East Nations that pose 0 threat to America .
These trillions could have been spent providing free college education and job training for
all you White Teenage Males thinking of signing the US Army contract .and these trillions could
have spent providing you with free college education and job training many many times over .think
about it
Other young White Men sir in NCAA DIV 1 football stadiums yelling "WHAT A STUD" at the football
players down on the field while you lie dying on the ground in Afghanistan your body cut in half
by a rocket propelled grenade .screaming for your mother minutes later your life slips away into
the coldness of eternal death .for what? Sadly a pointless meaningless death .
Once the Pentagon has the plan's of the Bankster's they never stop or halt with it in the Empire!
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military
Personnel
The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since
September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed
Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments.
Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years
"This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years,
starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."
I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw
him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo!
I didn't show it to you!"
stating unlikely scenarios (if not patent absurdities) as facts. What is your evidence that
Iran provided EFPs and training to Iraqi militias?
At the time, when the US occupiers in Iraq were making unproven allegations of Iranian support
of militias (including providing the notorious EFPs) with the likely intent of justifying acts
of aggression against Iran, or other actions aiding their illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq,
it was both legitimate and sensible to require proof of any and all specific allegations. All
the items alleged to have come from Iran (according to the US military and regime) could just
as easily have come from elsewhere or been manufactured locally.
However, when discussing the matter in general terms, it is not really credible to deny
that many of the shia militias did get very substantial support (including military training and
assistance, and most likely manufactured military hardware items such as the EFPs, or the designs
and funding to manufacture them locally) from Iran. Iran would have been very foolish not to have
done so. It was the clear intention of the US regime, if they had succeeded in imposing a compliant
collaboration regime on Iraq, to attack Iran next.
Though of course it was the sunni insurgents funded by the US's Gulf "allies" whom the
American occupiers were fighting most of the time, and Iran certainly wasn't behind them.
@War
for Blair Mountain You forgot to mention the 'Sikh (actually, Sikhni) Whore', Nikki Haley
at the UN doing the bidding for
But seriously, who profited the most from the 11 trillion (your estimate, not mine) spent
in those wars? You have to do forensic analysis of who actually owns the stocks in those companies
to find out who has gotten the dough
@Renoman
Iran liberated itself from the USA puppet shah in 1979, and since then refused to accept the
USA yoke again. This of course for the USA is unforgivable.
For the same reason for decades the USA pretended that Taiwan, Formosa, was China. Nixon accepted
reality.
The problem now is, I hope, that Trump also sees reality, that Roosevelt's plan to rule the
world with Smaller Britain, Stalin and Tsjang Kai Shek, just was megalomania, ruining the USA,
causing great misery in large parts of this earth.
CNN, Washpost and NYT still do not see reality. They did not watch BBCW this morning, Khazakhstan
as railway hub between China, Russia and Europe. The USA, a backwater if it continues as Obama
did.
@Randal
This was a really great article: well argued, nuanced, rational. Unfortunately, none of that
is a factor in US/Iran policy. Let's take this quote:
"until Washington's policymakers change their all-Iran-all-the-time mental model, they are
doomed to failure."
I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered
career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it just
doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not like we,
the Elites are paying for it)
So it's crazy, unprofitable to maintain the Iran-universal-bogey-man policy ? Who cares ?
US elites hate Iran: 1979. That's sufficient in itself.
Saudi & Israel hate Iran: "snap !"
Iran is an allied with Russia: case closed --
Oh, & NO ONE in the US Elite thinks about this, but Iran has a bit of oil wealth Too cynical,
I know.
No country snubs the US and gets away with it! Cuba tried and has paid the penalty for 40 years. Iran tried and succeeded and the US has never forgotten. You don't insult the Mafia and get away with it.
Excellent points. For a more detailed analysis, I recommend "Manufactured Crisis – The Untold
Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare," by Gareth Porter.
Interesting factoid: A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence"
that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been halted in the fall of 2003 and with "moderate confidence"
that it had not been restarted as of mid-2007. I am not aware that this estimate has been revised
or updated.
Iran shows the power of the Jewish control over America Hate of Iran is what the "tribe" has overtly pushed for, but to be sure there is much much
more they have slipped into our consciousness we are not so aware of.
Certainly the hate of Muslims in general (while conversely using their media to demonize anyone
who questions Muslims migration, and of course always omitting the reality that Zionist wars in
the Middle East are causing much of that migration of course all part of their plan), hate for
Russia?Putin, American society, Jesus Christ, White Men, White boys
The control of American society began years ago, mid 20th century, and has gotten progressively
worse.
@Randal
The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US
elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign
policy.
I would argue, in line with your final sentence, that this irrational "bug" is very much a
rational "feature". Indeed, despite what many critics maintain, US foreign policy has been eminently
successful in achieving its objectives (or at least the objectives of those who effectively set
such policy).
Excuses, excuses, excuses by the author for the poor Iranians. When someone attacks YOUR
family, friends or loved ones, what do you do? "Head in the ground" it sound like. WHO cares why
they do it. Simply make them STOP and punish them for the attacks. After justice is served, only
then do the bleeding hearts get to ask them WHY? "EARTH TO THE AUTHOR", we tried it their way
without result so now the bleeding hearts want to give the Iranians the benefit of doubt using
our children and money all over again! Send your child to fight and should he/she come
back in a body bag, blame yourself. ., because we've hear and tried it your way. (DUH)
@jilles
dykstra What a beautiful prospect: the USA as backwater, still with elements of its natural
beauty, still safe from armed invasion and even exporting half of its least employable 100 million
to jobs on the new silk road
The truth and facts don't matter any more in todays world. What matters is the Zionist stranglehold
over American political life and media.
What Israel wants, Israel gets. Want hundreds of billions
of dollars of hard pressed US taxpayers money? No problem, well close down a few more schools
and welfare programmes. Israels whores in Congress will deliver.
Want a huge illegal nuclear arsenal
with hundreds of nuclear warheads targeted at all your neighbours? No problem, we can organise
that for you. Want all your military equipment provided completely free of charge? No problem,
well even get our German satrap Merkel to send you half a dozen advanced Dolphin nuclear missile
submarines completely free of charge.
Want us to destroy any neighbouring country you dislike?
No problem, well be your dumb muscle whenever you want – just let us know which country you want
destroyed next – Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran. Want us to change the laws to make any criticism of
Israel a criminal offence? No problem. Just let us know when you want us to lick your boots. After
all, were just goyim put on this earth to serve you like domestic animals. Cant do enough to please
our masters. You can always rely on us to provide you with all the money and cannon fodder you
need. were just here to serve you.
I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered
career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it
just doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not
like we, the Elites are paying for it)
Indeed. A result that is a bloody, costly, disastrous failure for one group (such as the American
nation collectively) might well be a "no big deal" for another group (the self-serving US elites
you mention) and even a heart-warming success for another (the Israel/Saudi partisans and suchlike).
All at the same time.
I would argue, in line with your final sentence, that this irrational "bug" is very much
a rational "feature".
Not going to disagree with you on that point, of course.
The claims made about Iran (seeking nuclear weapons with aggressive intent, being likely to
"dominate the region", being a threat to the US itself or even to legitimate US interests, etc)
are mostly literally irrational in that they are untrue and illogical, relying upon simple falsehoods
and distortions of reality.
But it is certainly arguably rational for those with personal loyalties to Israel or to Saudi
Arabia etc, or to other enemies or rivals of Iran, or for those with personal selfish interests
in promoting confrontation and war (military industrial types, bought and paid for politicians,
etc) to try to persuade Americans in general, and especially American politicians and media/opinion
leaders, that these irrationalities are in fact honest descriptions of reality.
That's why I noted that it is very informative, for the many who are not aware of the true
situation, to examine how and by whom this false view of the world is disseminated and imposed
on Americans in particular.
Indeed, despite what many critics maintain, US foreign policy has been eminently successful
in achieving its objectives (or at least the objectives of those who effectively set such policy)
Again, absolutely agree.
As a matter of definitional reality, government policy is not of course set in the interests
of the nation, but in the interests of those with the power to influence government policy. All
the more reason to regard dual and external loyalties as uniquely poisonous in such groups and
individuals.
The truth and facts don't matter any more in todays world. What matters is the Zionist
stranglehold over American political life and media. What Israel wants, Israel gets.
Want hundreds
of billions of dollars of hard pressed US taxpayers money? No problem, well close down a few more
schools and welfare programmes. Israels whores in Congress will deliver. Want a huge illegal nuclear
arsenal with hundreds of nuclear warheads targeted at all your neighbours? No problem, we can
organise that for you. Want all your military equipment provided completely free of charge? No
problem, well even get our German satrap Merkel to send you half a dozen advanced Dolphin nuclear
missile submarines completely free of charge. Want us to destroy any neighbouring country you
dislike? No problem, well be your dumb muscle whenever you want - just let us know which country
you want destroyed next - Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran. Want us to change the laws to make any criticism
of Israel a criminal offence? No problem. Just let us know when you want us to lick your boots.
After all, were just goyim put on this earth to serve you like domestic animals. Cant do enough
to please our masters. You can always rely on us to provide you with all the money and cannon
fodder you need. were just here to serve you. Cruel but just words (from Comment section on
http://thomas-l-are.blogspot.com/2017/05/what-kind-of-people.html#comment-form ):
"The brilliant George Bernard Shaw once said that one could use three concepts to describe
the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Nazism. He argued that
if a person was intelligent, and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was
not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi.
I propose we update Shaw's rather astute observations with: There are also three concepts
to describe the positions of individuals in Zionist Israel: intelligence, decency, and Zionism.
We can argue that if a person is intelligent, and a Zionist, he is not decent. If he is decent
and a Zionist, he is not intelligent. And if he is decent and intelligent, he is not a Zionist.
"
Exceptionalism: the condition of being different from the norm; also : a theory
expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region.
May 29, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - There are many theories surrounding the origin of American exceptionalism.
The most popular in US folklore, being that it describes America's unique character as a "free" nation
founded on democratic ideals and civil liberties. The Declaration of Independence from British colonial
rule is the foundation of this theory and has persevered throughout the often violent history of
the US since its birth as a free nation.
Over time, exceptionalism has come to represent superiority in the minds and hearts of Americans.
Belief in their economic, military and ideological supremacy is what has motivated successive US
governments to invest in shaping the world in their superior image with little or no regard for the
destruction left in the wake of their exceptional hegemony.
In considering itself, exceptional, the US has extricated itself from any legal obligation to
adhere to either International law or even the common moral laws that should govern Humanity. The
US has become exceptionally lawless and authoritarian particularly in its intolerant neo-colonialist
foreign policy. The colonized have become the colonialists, concealing their brutal savagery behind
a veneer of missionary zeal that they are converting the world to their form of exceptionalist Utopia.
Such is the media & marketing apparatus that supports this superiority complex, the majority of
US congress exist within its echo chamber and are willing victims of its indoctrination. The power
of the propaganda vortex pulls them in and then radiates outwards, infecting all in its path. Self-extraction
from this oligarchical perspective is perceived as a revolutionary act that challenges the core of
US security so exceptionalism becomes the modus vivendi.
Just as Israel considers itself 'the chosen people' from a religious perspective, the US considers
itself the chosen nation to impose its version of Democratic reform and capitalist hegemony the world
over. One can see why Israel and the US make such symbiotic bedfellows.
"The fatal war for humanity is the war with Russia and China toward which Washington is driving
the US and Washington's NATO and Asian puppet states. The bigotry of the US power elite is rooted
in its self-righteous doctrine that stipulates America as the "indispensable country" ~
Paul Craig Roberts: Washington Drives the World Towards War.
So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny
& neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? Why do the European vassal states not rise up
against this authoritarian regime that flaunts international law and drags its NATO allies down the
path to complete lawlessness and diplomatic ignominy?
What is Gaslighting?
The psychological term "Gaslighting" comes from a 1944 Hollywood classic movie called Gaslight.
Gaslighting describes the abuse employed by a narcissist to instil in their victim's mind, an extreme
anxiety and confusion to the extent where they no longer have faith in their own powers of logic,
reason and judgement. These gaslighting techniques were adopted by central intelligence agencies
in the US and Europe as part of their psychological warfare methods, used primarily during torture
or interrogation.
Gaslighting as an abuser's modus operandi, involves, specifically, the withholding of factual
information and its replacement with false or fictional information designed to confuse and disorientate.
This subtle and Machiavellian process eventually undermines the mental stability of its victims reducing
them to such a depth of insecurity and identity crisis that they become entirely dependent upon their
abuser for their sense of reality and even identity.
Gaslighting involves a step by step psychological process to manipulate and destabilize its victim.
It is built up over time and consists of repetitive information feeds that enter the victim's subconscious
over a period of time, until it is fully registered on the subconscious "hard disk" and cannot be
overridden by the conscious floppy disk. Put more simply, it is brainwashing.
" Overall, the main reason for gaslighting is to create a dynamic where the abuser has complete
control over their victim so that they are so weak that they are very easy to manipulate." ~
Alex Myles
Three Stages of Gaslighting: Stage One
The first stage depends upon trust in the integrity and unimpeachable intentions of the abuser,
a state of reliance that has been engendered by the abuser's artful self-promotion and ingratiating
propaganda. Once this trust is gained, the abuser will begin to subtly undermine it, creating situations
and environments where the victim will begin to doubt their own judgement. Eventually the victim
will rely entirely upon the abuser to alleviate their uncertainty and to restore their sense of reality
which is in fact that of the abuser.
Stage Two
The second stage, defence, is a process by which the abuser isolates the victim, not only from
their own sense of identity but from the validation of their peers. They are made to feel that their
opinion is worthless, discredited, down-right weird. In political circles they would be labelled
a conspiracy theorist, a dissident, a terror apologist. As a consequence, the victim will withdraw
from society and cease to express themselves for fear of ridicule, judgement or punishment.
This stage can also be compared to Stockholm Syndrome where a hostage or captive is reduced,by
psychological mind games, back to infantile dependency upon their captor. Narcissistic abuse bonds
the victim to the aggressor via trauma. Stockholm Syndrome bonds the victim to the aggressor via
regression to an infantile state where the abuser/aggressor becomes the "parent" who will rescue
the victim from imminent annihilation. Both methods tap into the victim's survival mechanisms to
gain and maintain control.
Stage Three
The final stage is depression. A life under the tyrannical rule of a narcissist drives the victim
into a state of extreme confusion. They are stripped of dignity & self-reliance. They, ultimately
exist in an information vacuum which is only filled by that which the abuser deems suitable or relevant.
This can eventually invoke symptoms of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]. Flashbacks, constant
apprehension, hyper vigilance, mind paralysis, rage and even violence. The process is complete and
the victim has been reduced to a willing accomplice in the abusers creation of a very distorted reality.
Exceptionalism or Narcissism?
We are currently seeing the transformation of US exceptionalism into an abusive Narcissism .
The gargantuan apparatus of mind bending and controlling is being put into hyper drive by the
ruling elite. We are inundated with propaganda that challenges our sense of reality but only after
being "tenderized" by the fear factor. Fear of "terror", fear of war, fear of financial insecurity,
fear of gun violence, fear of our own shadow. Once we are suitably quaking in our boots, in comes
the rendition of reality that relieves our anxiety. If we challenge this version of events we are
labelled a conspiracy theorist, a threat to security. We are hounded, discredited, slandered and
ridiculed. We are isolated and threatened.
Wars are started in the same way. Despite the hindsight that should enable us to see it coming,
the process swings into motion with resounding success. The ubiquitous dictator, the oligarch who
threatens to destroy all that the US and her allies represent which of course is, freedom, equality
& civil liberty all wrapped up in the Democracy shiny paper and tied with the exceptionalist ribbon.
Next the false flag to engender fear, terror and to foment sectarian strife. The support of a
"legitimate" organic, indigenous "revolution" conveniently emerging in tandem with US ambitions for
imposing their model of governance upon a target nation. The arming of "freedom fighters", the securing
of mercenary additions to these manufactured proxy forces. All this is sold in the name of freedom
and democracy to a public that is already in a state of anxiety and insecurity, lacking in judgement
or insight into any other reality but that of their "abuser".
The NGO Complex Deployment
Finally, the Humanitarians are deployed. The forces for "good", the vanguard of integrity and
ethical intervention. The power that offers all lost souls a stake-holding in the salvation of sovereign
nations that have lost their way and need rescuing. A balm for a damaged soul, to know they can leave
their doubts and fears in such trustworthy hands as HRW, Amnesty International, they can assuage
their deep sense of guilt at the suffering being endured by the people of far flung nations because
they can depend upon the NGOs to provide absolution with minimal effort on their part. They don't
realise that NGOs are an integral part of their abuser's apparatus, operating on the leash of neo-colonialist
financing and influence. NGOs provide the optic through which the abuser will allow the victim to
perceive their world and once absorbed into this flawed prism the victim's own cognitive dissonance
will ensure they do not attempt a jail break.
In this state of oppressed consciousness the victim accepts what they are told. They accept that
the US can sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia that obliterate human beings and lay waste to essential
civilian infrastructure in Yemen. They accept that the US financially, ideologically & militarily
supports the illegal state of Israel and provides the arsenal of experimental weapons that maim and
mutilate children and civilians on a scale that is unimaginable. They accept that a crippling blockade
of the already impoverished and starving nation of Yemen is "necessary" to resolve the issues of
sectarian divisions that only exist in the minds of their Congressional abusers.
The majority of Americans accept mass murder under the pretext of the right to protect , because
their ability to form rational and reasoned opinions has been engineered out of them. This is now
the definition of US exceptionalism. It is their ability to manipulate the world into accepting their
lawlessness and global hegemony agenda. In seeking to impose its own image upon our world the US
has drifted so far from its founding principles, one wonders how they will ever return to them. They
have employed a recognised form of torture to ensure capitulation to their mission of world domination
which entails the mental, physical and spiritual torture of target civilian populations.
In conclusion, the US has indeed achieved exceptionalism. The US has become an exceptional global
executioner and persecutor of Humanity. Imperialism is a euphemism for the depths of abuse the US
is inflicting upon the people of this world.
Our only hope is to break the cycle of abuse with empathy for the victim and with appreciation
for the years of brainwashing that precedes their agonizing passive-aggressive apathy towards crimes
being committed in "their name".
This was an email I received recently from one courageous young American girl whose epiphany is
testament to the resilience and survival instinct of the human spirit.
" My name is Caroline and I am a 22 year old US citizen. I only fairly recently discovered the
truth about Empire/NATO's activities in Syria and Libya and so many other countries (thanks to writers
like Andre Vltchek, Cory Morningstar, Forrest Palmer). I am sickened when I remember that I signed
some of those Avaaz petitions and I feel horrified at knowing that I have Syrian and Libyan blood
on my hands. I want to believe that I'm not "really" guilty because I really thought (as I had been
told) that I was not doing something bad at the time, but still, what I did contributed to the suffering
of those people and I want to do something to atone in at least some small way, even though I probably
can't "make up" for what I did or erase my crime.
If it's not too much trouble, could you please tell me what you think I should do, if there is
anything?"
She deserves an answer
***
Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and s ince 2011, she has spent most of
her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer
and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement,
and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog
The Wall Will Fall .
"... The schools teach a combination of staff process and sophomore-level college courses in government and international relations. No one is taught how to be a commander in combat. One Army lieutenant colonel recently wrote me that he got angry when he figured out that nothing he needs to know to command would be taught to him in any Army school. ..."
"... The promotion system reinforces professional ignorance. ..."
It was tragic that the career of General David Petraeus was brought down by a mere affair. It should
have ended several years earlier as a consequence of his failure as our commander in Afghanistan.
Petraeus, like every other theater commander in that war except Stanley McChrystal, could have been
replaced by a concrete block and nothing would have changed. They all kept doing the same things
while expecting a different result.
Thomas Ricks's recent book The Generals has reintroduced into the defense debate a vital
factor the press and politicians collude in ignoring: military incompetence. It was a major theme
of the Military Reform Movement of the 1970s and '80s. During those years, a friend of mine who was
an aide to a Marine Corps commandant asked his boss how many Marine generals, of whom there were
then 60-some, could competently fight a battle. The commandant came up with six. And the Marine Corps
is the best of our services.
Military incompetence does not begin at the rank of brigadier general. An old French proverb says
that the problem with the generals is that we select them from among the colonels. Nonetheless, military
competence-the ability to see quickly what to do in a military situation and make it happen-is more
rare at the general officer level. A curious aspect of our promotion system is that the higher the
rank, the smaller the percentage of our competent officers.
Why is military incompetence so widespread at the higher levels of America's armed forces? Speaking
from my own observations over almost 40 years, I can identify two factors. First, nowhere does our
vast, multi-billion dollar military-education system teach military judgment. Second, above the rank
of Army, Marine Corps, or Air Force captain, military ability plays essentially no role in determining
who gets promoted. (It has been so long since our Navy fought another navy that, apart from the aviators,
military competence does not seem to be a consideration at any level.)
Almost never do our military schools, academies, and colleges put students in situations where
they have to think through how to fight a battle or a campaign, then get critiqued not on their answer
but the way they think. Nor does American military training offer much free play, where the enemy
can do whatever he wants and critique draws out why one side won and the other lost. Instead, training
exercises are scripted as if we are training an opera company. The schools teach a combination
of staff process and sophomore-level college courses in government and international relations. No
one is taught how to be a commander in combat. One Army lieutenant colonel recently wrote me that
he got angry when he figured out that nothing he needs to know to command would be taught to him
in any Army school.
The promotion system reinforces professional ignorance. Above the company grades, military
ability does not count in determining who gets promoted. At the rank of major, officers are supposed
to accept that the "real world" is the internal world of budget and promotion politics, not war.
Those who "don't get it" have ever smaller chances of making general. This represents corruption
of the worst kind, corruption of institutional purpose. Its result is generals and admirals who are
in effect Soviet industrial managers in ever worse-looking suits. They know little and care less
about their intended product, military victory. Their expertise is in acquiring resources and playing
the military courtier.
US
Nuclear Weapon Upgrade Program:
"CBO estimates that nuclear forces will
cost $348 billion
between FY 2015 and FY 2024. Three independent estimates put the expected
total cost over the next 30 years at as much as $1 trillion."
[aircarft carrier] The Gerald R. Ford, $12.8 billion + $4.7 billion R&D (estimated). The Navy
wants ten.
Columbia
, the Navy's upcoming new nukey-boomer, formerly ORP, Ohio Replacement Program. "The
total lifecycle cost of the entire class is estimated at $347 billion.": Wikipedia
..."
Trump's
proposed increase in US military spending is almost as big as Russia's entire defense
budget."
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980′s, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion ..whats the end game?
@aceofspades
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980's, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion.....whats the end game?
@aceofspades
Well, this is very ironic. Back in the 1980's, the Soviets spent a
massive amount of money on their military to keep up with America, and
this ended up bankrupting them and causing their collapse. Now the US of
A is spending a horrific amount of money on their military, despite the
fact we are 20 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention that fact that we
need to rebuild our infrastructure and pay off all the people on welfare
and government benefits. 20 trillion will become 30 trillion, which will
be 40 trillion.....whats the end game?
The aircraft relies on the assumption that, in thirteen years when
it enters service, anti-stealth technology will not have reached the
point of making it even more obviously useless.
The purpose of this sort of technology is to make lots and lots of
money for the right people. Whether it works or not is entirely
irrelevant.
@Sunbeam
One thing I'm waiting to see is when non-American culture producers start
to beat Americans.
Bollywood is gigantic. And has a huge presence in parts of Asia.
There used to be Hong Kong Cinema. Not sure what happened to it.
Successful, but not on the scale of Star Wars or The Fast And The Furious
or something.
Brazilian T&A soap operas are spreading around the world.
K-Pop is doing the same.
Japanese Anime and Manga, maybe the odd pop star, is worldwide now as
well.
But one day we are going to see that the past year's biggest movie
worldwide was made in Bollywood or China.
I'm a nationalist, but I will absolutely cheer as the first nail goes in
Hollywood's coffin.
As someone who has travelled to the US and China (Beijing), I was
astounded by how advanced China's infrastructure was to that of the US.
Subways, freight trains, highways, airports, bridges you name it. The
investment is still on going and only really been going on for 25 or so
years. I had the feeling in the US things were being neglected. Also
China is almost unbelievably safe walking the streets. Everybody behaved
like mature adults. No forty year olds who dressed like teenagers, in
fact most of the teenagers dressed like forty year olds should.
Infrastructure is critical to a modern society, the military merely
protects it. Economy is the source of viable military spending, not the
other way around.
This marvelous revelation from Wikipedia: "In July 2016, the U.S.
Air Force stated they would not release the estimated cost for the
B-21 contract with Northrop Grumman. The Air Force argued releasing
the cost would reveal too much information about the classified
project to potential adversaries." As, for example, taxpayers.
"The aircraft relies on the assumption that, in thirteen years when it
enters service, anti-stealth technology will not have reached the
point of making it even more obviously useless."
It will still be good for terrorizing ... sorry ... for policing rogue
states like N. Korea, Serbia, Yemen, and Syria.
Interesting questions ! But one can sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge that not even the pretense of a reply
to Bacevich's questions will be forthcoming for the US MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry? ..."
"... How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions. ..."
"... Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs. ..."
"... The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? ..."
"... Well, looks like I missed the war ending .but with the war ended, one would think we wouldn't have to be dropping the world's biggest bomb ..."
"... I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven. ..."
"... Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. ..."
"... Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy. The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption. When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies. ..."
"... Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting. In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict. ..."
"... Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up our perpetually campaigning political-climber class? ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
"... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
"... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
"... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
"... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President Trump's ascendancy had coincided with
a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that's hardly the
case. True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude,
inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already
emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered
a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he
had previously sworn fealty requires something less than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes.
As for beating up on poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes - well, that's more akin
to sadism than reporting.
Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select
military figures excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to
November 8th of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties discovered,
celebrated, then mocked; "extraordinary" stories of ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only
to once again be consigned to oblivion - all served with a side dish of that day's quota of suffering,
devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism's stock-in-trade. As practiced in the United States,
with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic,
and governed by the attention span of a two year old.
As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their
labors as "now more important than ever" ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten.
Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further. If anything, the media's current obsession with
Donald Trump - his every utterance or tweet treated as "breaking news!" - just provides one additional
excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they
currently receive.
To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security issues that presently
receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set
the nation's political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters
to which you're not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.
1. Accomplishing the "mission" : Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United
States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S.
security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans
expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it
another way, when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home? And if it is incumbent upon the
United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in
the international order - the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change - affect
the U.S. approach to doing so?
2 . American military supremacy : The United States military is undoubtedly the world's
finest. It's also far and away the
most generously funded , with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities
to practice their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything? Or put another way,
why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington's stated wartime objectives?
Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere
in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we've taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing
differently?
3. America's empire of bases : The U.S. military today
garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless
of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in distant
lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this
practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to "host"
American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should
U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?
4. Supporting the troops : In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve
in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to
cherish America's "warriors." Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard
camouflage a growing
gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system,
based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has discussion
and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation's political priorities?
5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief : Are there any military actions that the president
of the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade
by decade, Congress has
abdicated
its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to
do (or simply
stays mum ). Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit? Have U.S. policies thereby
become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?
6. Assassin-in-chief : A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis
of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed,
however, the U.S. government suffered
considerable
embarrassment , so much so that presidents
foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination
business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence
of names on the current presidential
hit list , euphemistically
known as the White House "disposition matrix." But does assassination actually advance U.S. interests
(or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its
costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?
7. The war formerly known as the "Global War on Terrorism" : What precisely is Washington's
present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected
to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of
strategy - not to mention an agreed upon definition of "success" - doesn't even qualify for discussion
here?
8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom : The conflict commonly referred
to as the Afghanistan War is now the
longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War
II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect
it to end? On what terms?
9. The Gulf : Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on
having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is
once more an
oil exporter . Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are
far greater than was
once believed . Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American
national security persists in Washington. Why?
10. Hyping terrorism : Each year
terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do
auto accidents
, drug overdoses , or even
lightning strikes
. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence
over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't : Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful
of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger
numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United
States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians
or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the answer to that
question?
12. Israeli nukes : What purpose is served by indulging the
pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
13. Peace in the Holy Land : What purpose is served by
indulging illusions that a "two-state solution" offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American
tribes, Israeli settlers
expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As they do, the likelihood of
creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent
of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of
Mar-a-Lago.
14. Merchandizing death : When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America
Great Again. The U.S. ranks
number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies
Saudi Arabia and
Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product
$20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic
product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American
taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn't the Israelis? They can certainly afford
to do so.
15. Our friends the Saudis (I) : Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were
Saudis. What does that fact signify?
16. Our friends the Saudis (II) : If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are
competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should
the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American
values than do Iranian ones?
17. Our friends the Pakistanis : Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a
nuclear weapons proliferator . It
supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet U.S. policymakers
treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do U.S. and Pakistani interests or values
coincide? If there are none, why not say so?
18. Free-loading Europeans : Why can't Europe, "
whole and free ," its
population
and
economy considerably larger than Russia's, defend itself? It's altogether commendable that U.S.
policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But
how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in
Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?
19. The mother of all "special relationships" : The United States and the United Kingdom
have a "special relationship" dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart
from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric
detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should U.S. relations with Great
Britain, a fading power, be any more "special" than its relations with a rising power like India?
Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting
Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence
still need a "mother country"?
20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz : American presidents routinely cite their hope
for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces
on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar
modernization
of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear
war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other
nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects
for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?
21. Double standards (I) : American policymakers take it for granted that their country's
sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S.
military forces to
scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes
the position that spheres of influence are
obsolete
and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese,
Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong - in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray
beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should
these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn't similar rules apply to the United States?
22. Double standards (II) : Washington claims that it supports and upholds international
law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard
it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United
States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to
reverse their actions on the
rare occasions when
U.S. courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since
the United States does so only when convenient?
23. Double standards (III) : The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians
in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often
on a massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the
killing of Germans, Japanese,
Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible
than the Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans
accept Pentagon
claims that, when civilians are killed these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental,
whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or
the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over
or ignore altogether the
noncombatants that Saudi forces (with
U.S. assistance ) are routinely killing in Yemen?
24. Moral obligations : When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights,
members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to "do something."
Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians
were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of
action - typically advocating military intervention - argue that the United States has a moral obligation
to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what determines the pecking
order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others
or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance,
Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the
U.S. invasion of 2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally
denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended?
Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed
and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations?
And if not, shouldn't those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?
Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues - none seriously covered, discussed, or
debated in the American media or in the political mainstream - bears more directly on the wellbeing
of the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may
have said or done during his first 100 days as president. Collectively, they define the core of the
national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery
of American politics.
How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself
is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters
sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that,
as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth
requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions.
Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" has many of the answers to the questions about why the
MSM is the way it is. People are hard-wired to react to sound bites, especially potential pleasure
or terror. The MSM is very good at that. Populist politicians feed off of the same.
"What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would
be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal
some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it."
Sorry MoiAussie, but the analysis has already been done, unfortunately nobody really cares.
Propaganda and the Public Mind
Necessary Illusions
"What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would
be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal
some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it. In
a nutshell, how to foster thriving independent media with broad reach that expose MSM stenography
and resist censorship?"
Well, yes. Except the behaviour you are analysing is, presumably, among other things, the behaviour
involved in inadequately addressing these topics.
stop fighting about identity politics (i'm not holding my breath for either side)
elements of both sides want to return to a non-interventionist US foreign policy, except there
is always a fight about something else that serves as a distraction.. like cats and shiny toys.
The only thing one can do is persistently bring important issues forward to friends and colleagues.
In other words, become in many respects a social pariah. Challenging the status quo by definition
makes you an outsider.
The strategic effectiveness of this dissent becomes manifest when you actually change how you
live your life. You become an example for others to follow.
Any successful movement building must follow this path. The strategic plan is to live and think
like a socialist in a crumbling capitalist world. The rising levels of inequality must surely
bring this about, one way or another.
Socialism or Barbarism. How many working people could disagree with that? It needs to be repeated
over and over. That spirit needs to be reflected in individual life in order to survive.
" But it raises the question, what can individuals do to change the behavior of the media?"
We can continue to ignore them and opt for the following: Naked Capitalism, CounterPunch, ZeroHedge,
Liberty Blitzkreig, ContraCorner, Truthout, Consortium News, The Unz Review, Tom Dispatch, Democracy
Now, Pando Daily, The Intercept, etc, etc. That is the mainstream media's worst nightmare.
The only reason to check the NYT or Washington Post is to see what meme is being promoted by
the deep state; then you know what not to believe.
I find this whole debate about fake news to be somewhat laughable. Americans have been subject
to fake news for decades, they just didn't know it. Noam Chomsky has been writing about this for
40 years. His books: Propaganda and the Public Mind, Deterring Democracy, Manufacturing Consent
and Necessary Illusions are all excellent and contain extensive research and details to support
his claims. Of course part to the fake news strategy has been to ignore people like Chomsky. Instead
we get intellectual clowns like Tom Friedman telling us how the world works.
Now that we have some real news, the fake news mainstream media has gone into panic mode and
its strategy is to label the real new as fake news. Orwell and Huxley must be rolling in their
graves with laughter.
True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the
ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news,
that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president
has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some
position to which he had previously sworn . "uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a
nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position.." a new development in POTUS behavior
ushered in by DTrump??
Ok, so the USG has 24 issues. Let's not be nit-picky.
On this one, we've had a bit of progress.
"8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred
to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil
War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict?
When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?"
We dropped a $30 million BMF'ing bomb on an undefensible, open plain. Killed 67 trees and terrified
Afgan flora from border to border. Egyptian cotton kids refuse to migrate there on their little
parachute thingies because they are terrified --
Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for
terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs.
This is appreciated by other terrorists in camp and they sleep better , too.
However, the Fava Beans and Olive Oil have been spilled. Unemployed tree hugger reporters report
that the BMF'ing bomb caused the tree sap to instantly turn to maple sugar candies and the candies
are now enclosed in a depleted uranium candy tins. Fake research scientists believe the bomb casing
was made of the depleted uranium. Could happen, opines Krugman, now minority owner of the NYT,
and seconded by Chelsea, whom did the secret HS science project back in the 90s in Yugoslavia.
She drew a cute picture of Daddy on the bomb's belly, but a lot of Very Serious Men In Black Suits
did everything else.
As to when the entire Afgan issue ends, we know the war becomes fiscally irresponsible when
the USG runs out of new trees to bomb and the maple sugar candies no longer can fund the onslaught.
Krugman is working on the macro analysis and will send the Noble Prize people an advanced copy
for editing, puffing up, and general focus grouping. One area of neglect is developing a universal
political correctness language – the semantics are daunting and definitions have to be dynamic,
yet synchronized with meanings according to domestic needs. That's a tough one.
Then people have to learn it, instead of lazily doing what they do now. Which I think may involve
much use of sign language.
An advance against the reward money is expected, and a pic of the statues with Kruggies name
on it would signal good faith and seal the deal. Bully to Trump!
"The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history
- having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the
Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end?"
Apparently, the Afghanistan war has ended. It makes me feel a little less stupid, although
I have a lot of excess stupid in reserve, to know others missed it as well ..
fresno dan
After dropping its largest conventional bomb ever used in combat in Afghanistan on 13 April,
the US military said the massive ordnance air blast, or Moab, was a "very clear message to Isis"
that they would be "annihilated".
Defence secretary Jim Mattis said the bomb was "necessary to break Isis". The Afghan government
claimed the bomb killed 94 Isis militants, while harming no civilians.
the military takes more and more "police actions" while the police use more and more military
equipment and tactics ..
Considering all the "surplus" stuff that goes to the police, how soon before the police drop the
biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the mother of all bombs???
how soon before the police drop the biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the
mother of all bombs???
low yield Neutron bomb.. don't damage what left of the domestic infrastructure, the REIT managers
would go crazy!
The backhanded criticism that the MFing bomb didn't do enough damage is related to where it
was used.
Try a barometric pressure bomb in a place like Manhattan and it would be a much different outcome
than say on the other end of the spectrum, at a latitude/longitude in Nevada where the before
and after pics would be identical.
A dark side of the media criticism of the MFing Bomb is that it may well goad the MIC/Pentagon
Product Managers into a do-over. Afterall, who likes their handiwork criticized?
DTrump told them I want something big and flashy while Xi is in town and that's what they came
up with..
"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Mao Zedong
The cool thing about guerilla warfare is it largely eliminates the concept of civilians since
anybody could be a soldier, even children. That is why civilian casualties are frequently so low,
because pretty much anybody over the age of 6 is a combatant. it also increases the enemy combatant
body count which makes it clear that the government forces are winning, as was so ably shown in
the Vietnam War.
I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather
than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven.
It was so DTrump could be at the breakfast table before the President of China and to greet
him with.. Wow, sorry I had to cut out before Dessert last night, had some things to take care
of, how was the Chocolate cake.. the Cake?" ( he like to repeat things)
I view the use of MOAB on ISIS as the equivalent of giving an antibiotic shot so that the in-country
Taliban immune system can wipe out the remaining ISIS bacteria. I don't think the Taliban wants
ISIS there since it focuses too much US attention on the area, so they may be willing to mop up
the remaining ISIS fighters.
Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress
and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace
in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. A few weeks later I actually got a phone
call from his office on this very question, yet the answer was still basically No. He did say
that Kerry had sought a UN brokered regime change in Syria (opposed by Russia), after I suggested
something like this.
However Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy.
The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect
of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption.
When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent
experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis
of the economists at these agencies.
"Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking
and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies." Thanks for pointing this out.
It's great to see people from across the ideological spectrum who served in the military, intelligence
services and in various administrations, speaking out. Hindsight is 20/20as the cliche goes. Now
if only people who are currently serving in those institutions would step up to the plate
and speak truth to power. At what point does it become unconscionable for good people to do nothing?
Or, rather, when does critical mass kick in and make resisting the insanity that reigns in our
institutions more than just a flash in the pan and career suicide?
The past is not encouraging, war hero Eisenhower could only warn of the MIC as he was exiting.
The economic footprint of the MIC + think tanks + academia + security agencies is huge (maybe
a trillion/year)
A lot of people depend on the defense budget staying large as the MIC is a jobs program throughout
much of the USA,.
I remember CA Senator Boxer, one of the few senators who voted against the AUMF in Iraq, fighting
to keep the local (to me) Mare Island Naval Shipyard from closing in 1996.
The adjacent city, Vallejo, subsequently went through bankruptcy.
One illustrative MIC family is the Kagan-Nuland family,
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs and seemed to be in charge of stirring up trouble in the Ukraine.
Her husband is noted neocon (he prefers "liberal interventionist") Robert Kagan of the Bookings
Institution, and his brother, Frederick, is at the American Enterprise institute.
Frederick's wife, Kimberly, heads up the "Institute for the Study of War" funded by Raytheon,
General Dynamics, DynCorp and others.
One might suggest this family gets meaning, purpose and income through USA military action.
One could posit there many other similar families.
It is difficult to be optimistic that much can be done.
These aren't independent issues (and, ultimately, there's no reason they have to be.)
Like, what's preventing the solution of #1 (expecting nations in these regions to assume responsibility
for managing their own affairs?) #17. When the Pakistanis have to deal with huge problems on the
other side of the invisible line, they aren't so reliable about sticking to the script. Especially
a script that has written out all the huge problems.
I guess that is the point. 45 seconds with this list pastes two items together and makes the
framework for a story. But the run of stories that appear are like Captain America saw a bad guy
and punched him in the face. Makes a good comic panel, and, when the press has been taught the
true meaning of "profitable", it makes a good newspaper page too. Right.
A working State Department could do interesting things with this list too, but - Captain America.
the US hasn't fought a peer nation since 1945-even then the USSR did a lot of the heavy lifting.
the US still hasnt beaten the Taliban.
US full spectrum dominance could be propaganda for all we know--with our vaunted carriers and
fighters sitting ducks to swarms of cheap first-world missiles.
in any fight with China or Russia, theyd only have to play defense. The US would be the ones
without home field advantage, likely in a war with limited domestic support as the fight probablyt
would not be about an existential issue to the US homeland
If a group like the Taliban has indigenous support, then you pretty much are left with destroying
the village in order to save it as the only military option. Putting a corrupt mafia in charge
of the country is not the appropriate alternate civilian political approach to win hearts and
minds.
In the 1990s nobody cared about the Taliban except when they were blowing up big Buddhas. Their
fatal error was allowing bin-Laden to launch major attacks against the US home soil. My guess
at this time is that the Taliban have been inoculated against spreading terror overseas. If the
US left Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably take many of the valleys back and kick ISIS out
so that they don't have to worry about the US coming back in to deal with 9/11 terrorists again.
Afghanistan would probably be fairly "peaceful" at that point in a fundamental Muslim way, kind
of like the fundamental Christian utopia that Mike Pence tried to create in Indiana.
Bacevich's indictment suffers from an inability to explain how this genuflecting celebration
of American intentions degenerated into what he goes on to elaborate.
Accomplishing the "mission": Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States
has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S.
security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well.
The beginning of the Cold War continues to be shrouded in assumptions about Soviet aggressiveness
and American and British benevolence. Otherwise critical thinkers become kool aid dispensers when
they are obliged to reference it. Bacevich skates over questions such as the division of Germany
- was it because the US wanted to allow Germany to quickly reindustrialize and the Soviets were
afraid of yet another invasion? - and whether city-destroying nuclear weapons would be internationally
controlled or remain a US monopoly.
Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting.
In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American
exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually
assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront
how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict.
I would like to see CNN or any other channel begin a series of TV presentations where each
one of these items is discussed by the relevant people. (When no officials show up for the program,
then the producers will know they are on the right track.) A great idea for a series of investigative
reports by journalists also.
However, would such a program make any difference in how things are done?
It's systemic. Journalism is a business of delivering eyeballs to advertisers. These important
issues don't sell. Get more flashy drama in the framing of the story and you might have a chance
exactly, it is "systemic"! Until one understands that the mainstream media's core business
is not news; it is selling audiences to advertisers, one will never properly understand the problem.
Could it be that our leadership in Washington has no idea why we are still in Afghanistan either?
Could it be that our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, like the idea of the US military sitting
at the back door to Iran? Could it be that we are getting the best foreign policy Saudi and Israeli
money can buy? And the MIC is glad to oblige.
Well we can certainly speculate on 1 – 24. In almost every case there is an implied answer:
We aren't quite finished yet establishing and maintaining our control. Over finance and power.
And even though war is too expensive and we have resorted to a kind of high-tech guerrilla
warfare, we still need boots on the ground. That is because we live in a material world and goods
are manufactured, transported and trafficked.
An even more stubborn war is going on in international finance (Hudson) – that's the one I'd
like to see reporters understand. Colonel Wilkerson said it is all about finance and power and
we will be in Afghanistan for 50 years. What's going on right now really seems like never ending
pointlessness. So maybe we should discuss exactly what we want to achieve control for – what's
the plan? In detail. Starting with the health of the planet and sustainable civilization.
Andrew could have headed his piece " Analysis of an Empire ' and then added the sub-heading
' A Tale of Vested Interests ' because that is surely why these atrocities ( yes that's right
) continue ad infintum, ad nauseum . And these same interests are those that sell us soap, automobiles,
liquor etc, etc, maybe not directly, but the interconnections are now so complete as to make distinctions
irrelevant.
Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized
after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline
personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up
our perpetually campaigning political-climber class?
Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his
description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's
father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle
personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.
Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before
being ordered to return to Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although
there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar Assad quickly relaxed some old security
laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012. Under that
new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against
two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election
he will step down.
Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the
US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique
that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis.
Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore
Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government
under Assad has ever been proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against
demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed members of the Muslim Brotherhood and
Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.
There have even been allegations
that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.
Similar tactics
were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were
seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police.
In the case of Syria:
"Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs .
His involvement in reconciliation and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms
at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis, he penned some remarkable
observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:
"'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed
demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often
the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'
"In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups,
which are also part of the opposition The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other
opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in
order then to blame the government.'"
For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international
war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in
Syria That Wasn't."
Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing
and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is
the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health
insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but
he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.
Among the rich I think there were three groups based on where their wealth and interests laid.
Banking/Insurance industry.
Distribution/logistics.
Manufacturing and Infrastructure.
Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman
Sacks and Walmart.
"Over the last thirty years the power of the Manufacturing and Infrastructure concerns has fallen
dramatically. So now we have a government dominated by Banking and Distribution, think Goldman
Sacks and Walmart."
This trend does not apply to Military-industrial complex (MIC). MIC probably should be listed
separately. Formally it is a part of manufacturing and infrastructure, but in reality it is closely
aligned with Banking and insurance.
CIA which is the cornerstone of the military industrial complex to a certain extent is an enforcement
arm for financial corporations.
According to former CIA director Richard Helms, when Allen Dulles was tasked in 1946 to "draft
proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency,"
he recruited an advisory group of six men made up almost exclusively of Wall Street investment
bankers and lawyers.
Dulles himself was an attorney at the prominent Wall Street law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell.
Two years later, Dulles became the chairman of a three-man committee which reviewed the young
agency's performance.
The other two members of the committee were also New York lawyers.i For nearly a year, the
committee met in the offices of J.H. Whitney, a Wall Street investment firm.ii
According to Peter Dale Scott, over the next twenty years, all seven deputy directors of the
agency were drawn from the Wall Street financial aristocracy; and six were listed in the New York
social register.iii
So we see that from the beginning the CIA was an exclusive Wall Street club. Allen Dulles himself
became the first civilian Director of Central Intelligence in early 1953.
The prevalent myth that the CIA exists to provide intelligence information to the president
was the promotional vehicle used to persuade President Harry Truman to sign the 1947 National
Security Act, the legislation which created the CIA.iv
But the rationale about serving the president was never more than a partial and very imperfect
truth...
"... Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs, income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White House. ..."
"... Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows. ..."
"... Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." ..."
"... To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country." ..."
So the remarks that Williams made some fifty-two years ago included the following reflection, worth
pondering by present-day conservatives. "If we justify our intervention in Vietnam on the grounds
that it is crucial to our national security," he said, "we will soon be able to justify using our
power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like."
Furthermore, "That kind of moral arrogance-that kind of playing at being God-will destroy any chance
we have to construct a good society." Then Williams added:
Notice that I said good society. We already have a great society, and I think that may
be the source of much of the trouble with our leaders. For greatness has primarily to do with
size, strength, and power. But we citizens who are gathered here are primarily concerned with
quality, equity, and with honoring our potential for becoming more fully and truly human.
In 1965, confusion about the distinction between great and good found American leaders
"following the wrong rainbow." President Johnson was promising Americans a "Great Society." What
he was actually delivering was an unnecessary war destined to cost the country dearly and leave it
bitterly divided.
Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for
his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs,
income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed
by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal
of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White
House.
Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will
deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated
the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since
taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying
conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is
one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his
ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows.
Meanwhile, to judge by Trump's one-and-done missile attack on Syria and the fatuous deployment
of the "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan, our president's approach to statecraft makes Lyndon
Johnson look circumspect by comparison. Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break
the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant
for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment
we do not like." U.S. national-security policy has become monumentally incoherent, with the
man in charge apparently doing whatever his gut or his latest visitor at Mar-a-Lago tells him to
do.
This defines the nation's current predicament: Whatever agreement once existed on what it means
to be either great or good has pretty much disappeared from American political culture.
Our fragmented society pursues any number of illusory rainbows. Restoring some semblance of a common
culture thereby poses a daunting challenge, even larger today than back in the Sixties when everything
seemed to be coming apart at the seams. I will refrain from offering any glib advice for how to promote
that restoration.
If hardly less challenging, imparting a modicum of coherence to U.S. policy abroad may actually
qualify as more urgent. After all, the impetuous Trump appears more likely than Lyndon Johnson to
blow up the world.
In that regard, the views expressed by Professor Williams back in 1965 in explaining the rationale
for the "teach-ins" offer at least a place to begin. "We are trying to bring our Government back
into a dialogue with its own citizens," he explained.
We are trying to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities and to function as a full
partner in governing the country. We are trying to change our foreign policy so that it will be
closer to the realities of the world and far more in keeping with our best traditions and highest
ideals-and thereby make it pragmatically more effective.
To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams
believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage
between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To
correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind
of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country."
As a place to begin, it was good advice then. It remains good advice today.
Afghan war is actually Afghanistan occupation with some insurgency, not a war...
Notable quotes:
"... civilian control of the military, and of the policymaking process that goes with military action, is not just a constitutional imperative but desirable for thoroughly practical reasons. Which, in turn, is why the makeup of the current administration - with an unprecedented number of generals in key positions - raises some serious questions. ..."
"... And yet the problem is so much bigger than that. Somehow - and this should be truly unnerving - Americans have gotten to a place where, it seems, they trust only ..."
"... Where the nation puts its money both reflects this reality and aggravates it. Consider that in this fiscal year military spending exceeded $600 billion, or 12 times the State Department's budget. Worse still, the new president's proposed budget would cut State by more than one-third - despite former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates's quip that there are already more members of military bands than Foreign Service officers. ..."
"... MacArthur in Korea ..."
"... Ike vs. the Generals ..."
"... Kennedy and the Joint Chiefs Deal With Cuba ..."
"... The Generals Grapple With Southeast Asia ..."
"... our nation turned its lonely eyes to him ..."
"... Before he used his new troops to launch his first major offensive into largely Taliban-controlled, opium-poppy-rich Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, McChyrstal proudly announced that he not only had a military force ready to go, but "a government in a box, ready to roll in," too. Seven years later, with more American soldiers once again being sent back into Helmand Province and the Taliban ascendant in significant parts of it, can there be any question how badly McChrystal's strategy failed? Today, in fact, more of Afghanistan is under Taliban control than at any time since 2001. As retired army colonel and Professor Gregory Daddis observed , "Looking back, the logic flaws become clear." After all, Daddis continued, "how could counterinsurgents provide security if the population too often saw U.S. soldiers as 'anti-bodies' invading their body politic?" ..."
"... After much positive and often fawning news coverage in the wake of his recent Tomahawk missile strike in Syria, it's hard to imagine that the president won't grant the generals' wishes. In fact, he has already reportedly turned over decision-making on U.S. troop levels in Syria and Iraq to them. And yet it should be obvious enough that more of the same, without even the semblance of credible alternatives or dissenting voices, is an innovation-stifling loser of an option. Fifteen years later, it doesn't take a genius to know that something about U.S. strategy hasn't been and isn't working . ..."
"... Civilian policymakers haven't always been right, but since World War II, the generals have the weaker (and far more hair-raising) record. ..."
"... Republics are imperiled when a military caste diverges from civil society. Despite the glowing (if shallow) praise heaped on America's all-volunteer force, it is increasingly distant from the population in whose name it theoretically fights. ..."
"... What's the purpose of this all-powerful US military? To transform much of the world into a simulacrum of a semi-religious Anglo-Celtic Israel-worshiper? Or turn the people of the world into a mass of secular hedonist consumerist debtors in servitude to the banks? The Soviet Union is long dead and every POTUS since 9/11 has said how much we all have to love Islam except for a tiny band of fanatics. ..."
"... So what is all the fuss about and why are we worshiping the military? ..."
I was guilty of it myself.
Commanding a small cavalry troop of about 85 soldiers in southwest Kandahar Province back in
2011, I certainly wanted and requested more: more troopers, more Special Forces advisers, more Afghan
police, more air support, more supplies, more money, more everything. Like so many others in Afghanistan
back then, I wanted whatever resources would protect the guys in my unit and fend off the insurgent
threat. No one, of course, asked me if the U.S. military should even be there, nor did I presume
to raise the question. I was, after all, just a captain dug into a tough fight in a dangerous district.
It's funny, though, people sometimes ask me now, "What's really going on in Afghanistan?" They
ask the same question about Iraq, where I
led a unit back in 2006-2007.
I mean, the implication is: If you served over there, unlike those (liberal!) pundits and politicians
who regularly mouth off on the subject, who would know better? But I've learned over the years that
what they don't want to hear is my real answer to such questions, so I rarely bother to tell them
that historians, analysts, and thoughtful critics, even ones who haven't been within thousands of
miles of our war zones, probably understand the "big picture" better than most soldiers.
That's the dirty little secret of America's wars: despite the omniscient claims of some veterans,
most soldiers see their version of war as if gazing through a straw at 30,000 feet. Combat and dedication
to your unit and mission naturally steer you toward such tunnel vision. And here's the sad thing
that no one wants to admit: that mantra applies as strongly to generals as to sergeants (and if you
don't believe that, just check out our wars of the last 15 years). So it's worrisome when president
after president defers to and all too often hides behind the supposed wisdom of active and retired
three- and four-star flag officers.
Don't get me wrong, some of these guys can be impressive. No one is perfect, but former Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey was a gem with genuine scholarly and combat
bona fides . But consider him and a few others the exceptions that prove the rule. Which is why
civilian control of the military, and of the policymaking process that goes with military action,
is not just a constitutional imperative but desirable for thoroughly practical reasons. Which, in
turn, is why the makeup of the current administration - with an
unprecedented number of generals in key positions - raises some serious questions.
And yet the problem is so much bigger than that. Somehow - and this should be truly unnerving
- Americans have gotten to a place where, it seems, they trust only soldiers. In June 2016,
for instance, a Gallup
poll found
that 73% of Americans had "quite a lot" of confidence in the military, versus 36% for the presidency
and 6% for Congress. Such disparities ought to inspire distress about the direction of our public
institutions, but rarely do.
Where the nation puts its money both reflects this reality and aggravates it. Consider that in
this fiscal year military spending
exceeded $600 billion, or 12 times the State Department's budget. Worse still, the new president's
proposed budget would cut State by more than one-third - despite former Secretary of Defense
Bob Gates's
quip that there are already more members of military bands than Foreign Service officers.
The Myth of (Infallible) Military Judgment
By now, it's part of American lore that, facing a thorny problem or potential conflict abroad,
a president should throw some stars at it. If only generals were indeed pixie dust. Historically
speaking, though, since World War II, calling on the generals has often resulted in abject failure.
There's plenty of evidence of that in the last 15 years of, at best, inconclusive war in the Greater
Middle East, but first, let's take a brief tour of military advice from the previous century's crises.
MacArthur in Korea
In October 1950, just months after the Korean War began, President Harry Truman met General Douglas
MacArthur, commander of the coalition forces in Korea, on Wake Island. There, MacArthur
assured
the president of two things: that the Chinese would not intervene in the war and that the fighting
would be over by Christmas. A month later, hundreds of thousands of Chinese "volunteers" streamed
across the Yalu River into northern Korea, sending MacArthur's troops into headlong retreat. Wrong
once, the general promptly called for a massive U.S. troop escalation and the bombing of China, perhaps
even nuclear attacks on that country. Truman recoiled, fired the general, and opened negotiations,
all while avoiding nuclear war. And what happened to the twice-wrong MacArthur? In April 1951, with
the war still underway - an armistice wouldn't finally come until July 1953 - he
received a record-breaking 19-mile-long ticker-tape parade through New York City in which
3,249 tons of paper rained down on him.
Ike vs. the Generals
President Dwight Eisenhower so loved the Army that he
asked his successor to return him to his five-star rank. That way he'd be addressed as "General"
rather than "Mr. President" in retirement. Yet no president was more dismissive of the notion that
military men, rather than civilians, know what's best. When a senator contended that the Air Force
was better positioned than politicians to assess its own needs, Ike
snapped back, "Bunk!" (He knew the Pentagon regularly overstated its case.) As for sage military
advice, Eisenhower
dismissed General Mark Clark's plans for an all-out assault in Korea as "madness" and
sacked all his service chiefs after they "revolted" over a truncated defense budget he proposed.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Arthur Radford, even
hinted that it might be "high time" to reexamine the taboo against using nuclear weapons in that
war. Despite significant saber-rattling, Ike ultimately chose restraint.
In fact, he was notoriously skeptical of his generals' advice and left office famously
warning Americans about a growing "military-industrial complex." The result of his presidency:
the commanding general and hero of World War II held down defense spending, never used nukes, ended
the bloody stalemate of a war in Korea, and - most importantly - avoided World War III.
Kennedy and the Joint Chiefs Deal With Cuba
The U.S. high command, like much of the American public, was obsessed with newly Communist Cuba.
In April 1961, after the Bay of Pigs, a disastrous CIA-sponsored invasion by Cuban émigrés, the generals
proposed a new plan
, Operation Northwoods. Approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it called for false-flag terrorist
attacks on émigrés in Miami or on U.S. ships off the coast to drum up public support for a war
against Cuba. President John F. Kennedy refused.
Soon after came the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought humanity as close to extinction as
it's ever come. When U.S. intelligence learned that the Soviet Union had stationed nuclear missiles
on that island, just 90 miles from Florida, the government entered full-scale panic mode. During
deliberations on how to proceed, the Joint Chiefs - to a man -
recommended air strikes against Cuba and a possible follow-on invasion. Later, in a memo, they
declared that they were prepared to
use "nuclear weapons for limited war operations in the Cuban area."
Instead, Kennedy chose a blockade and negotiations. The Russians responded by pulling their missiles
out of Cuba and humankind lived to fight another day. After one of those meetings, Kennedy
remarked to an aide, "These brass hats [generals and admirals] have one great advantage. If we
do what they want us to do, none of us will be alive later to tell them that they were wrong." Deeply
disturbed by the advice of the Chiefs during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy later
confided to some White House guests that "the first thing I'm going to tell my successor is to
watch the generals, and to avoid feeling that just because they were military men, their opinions
on military matters were worth a damn."
The Generals Grapple With Southeast Asia
In April 1961, the Joint Chiefs recommended that President Kennedy intervene to stop a "North
Vietnamese-sponsored" Communist offensive in Laos through the use of air strikes and the introduction
of U.S. ground forces in that country. When Kennedy
asked the military chiefs what to do if the North Vietnamese Communists bombed Laotian airports
as the U.S. flew in troops, one
replied : "You [drop] a bomb on Hanoi, and you start using atomic weapons!" In fact, Army General
Lyman Lemnitzer
assured the president that "if we are given the right to use nuclear weapons, we can guarantee
victory." Kennedy ruled against his generals on both counts.
Nevertheless, Kennedy and then President Lyndon Johnson foolishly agreed to escalate U.S. involvement
in Vietnam. In that war, admittedly, civilian policymakers were often the chief villains. However,
the generals were anything but blameless. In 1967, as U.S. casualties increased and many Americans
began to question the country's involvement in the conflict, the senior commander, General William
Westmoreland,
assured
Congress that there was, in a phrase that became infamous, "light at the end of the tunnel."
When Vietcong guerillas attacked nearly every American base in South Vietnam in the January 1968
Tet Offensive, he had only one answer, a solution once again all-too-familiar to twenty-first-century
Americans: more. He
requested
206,000 additional U.S. troops on top of the half-million-plus already in Vietnam. President
Johnson balked and began negotiations with North Vietnam. It took - tragically - seven more bloody
years, but eventually U.S. troops were extracted from what a near
consensus of credible historians now conclude was an "unwinnable" war.
These examples obviously don't imply that no general ever gave solid advice or that civilians
weren't perfectly capable of concocting their own hare-brained war-making schemes. Rather, the point
is to deflate - just a bit - the present all-too-popular notion of American military infallibility,
or at least superiority.
It's dangerous to deify any public institution, let alone the country's bureau of violence. That's
not, in itself, a knock at the military to which I've dedicated my adult life, but a basic recognition
of the gravity of all martial exertions. No government agency is so holy that it shouldn't be scrutinized,
not in a real democracy. Yet American society is headed in that very direction, along with its new
president. On Inauguration Day, finding himself in a crowded room with all the generals he had appointed
to key positions in his administration around him, he
declared emphatically, "I see my generals, generals that are going to keep us so safe."
We usually imagine the threat of military control over decision-making as an aspect of opaque
autocracies, but it can also stem from the excessive exultation of a "warrior" class in a democracy.
Consider the chilling
comments of White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer after a
controversial raid in Yemen in January left Ryan Owens, a Navy SEAL, several al-Qaeda fighters,
and a number of civilians,
as well as several children,
dead .
Spicer took umbrage after a number of people, including the notoriously hawkish, wildly pro-military,
former POW Senator John McCain,
questioned the operation's value. The press secretary's statement, however, went beyond standard
partisan defensiveness and into genuinely treacherous territory when he asserted that "anyone who
would suggest [the raid] is not a success does disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens." That
represents a new standard for public debate on military operations. Think of the implications: if
a single serviceman dies, then all critical scrutiny of such actions is off the table, being by its
very nature disrespectful and unpatriotic. Taken to its logical conclusion, such an approach would
leave no room for public protest or even the vestiges of an antiwar movement in response to future
American war making.
Lest anyone imagine that Spicer simply misspoke, President Trump promptly upped the ante. He
tweeted : "Sen. McCain should not be talking about the success or failure of a mission to the
media. Only emboldens the enemy our hero died on a winning mission." Take a moment to let that sink
in: to question the effectiveness of a raid in a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which
resulted in multiple military and civilian deaths - even when the critic is the Republican chairman
of the Senate Armed Services committee - should now be considered "emboldening" the enemy. Somebody
pinch me.
Generally, however, that raid led mainly to endless praise for both Chief Petty Officer Owens
and the U.S. military. In fact, no matter the situation, the carnage involved, or the decision-making
behind it, the rhetoric of praise for America's "warriors" has
become a commonplace of our national life.
In fact, we military professionals ought to be confident enough to weather genuine scrutiny of
both our decision-making and our acts. The danger is this: while we're caught up in the countless
"
thanks-for-your-service " platitudes, upgraded airline seating, ever larger flags flying o'er
sporting events, and other forms of hollow soldier-worship and militarized "patriotism," the nation
may be losing something precious: the right to dissent.
Bogus "Options"
In nearly every recent instance when military commanders were asked for a strategy review, the
response was the same. What was needed, swore the generals repeatedly, were more troops, more airstrikes,
more bases, more money, and more time. A rare exception to this litany of more came from former Joint
Chiefs Chairman Dempsey who laid out not just the options, but also the potential
costs of a Syrian intervention.
Presidents deserve and require such real options. Too often, however, especially in this country's
15-year "war on terror" across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, senior military leaders
have failed to present plausible, achievable choices to the commander-in-chief. Nearly all of them
have proved to be "more" guys.
Consider, for instance, Afghanistan in 2009. Things had been going poorly indeed in what was already
an eight-year-old war. And so our nation turned its lonely eyes to him - General Stanley
McChrystal, a special operator fresh off a tour tracking down and killing al-Qaeda in Iraq's leadership,
including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Asked to conduct a "strategic review" and present Barack Obama with military options in Afghanistan,
McChrystal instead
offered
the new president a
Goldilocks dilemma. He submitted what were, in essence, three versions of the same option: surge
big, surge little, or surge just right. Those "options" failed the Army's own doctrinal course of
action test
- solutions must be suitable, feasible, acceptable, and distinguishable. Since all three of McChrystal's
choices involved counterinsurgency and troop escalation, they were hardly distinguishable.
Instead, they did what they were meant to do and boxed the young president into an escalatory
corner, a "more" decision being not just the commander's favored but only course of action. Obama
grumbled and then sent McChrystal his reinforcements. It sounded like
Iraq 2006-2007 all over again.
Only this time - the president and Americans more generally were assured - the ensuing surge would
be even better, involving a supposedly comprehensive, interagency approach to the Afghan War.
Before he used his new troops to
launch his first major offensive into largely Taliban-controlled, opium-poppy-rich Helmand Province
in southern Afghanistan, McChyrstal proudly
announced
that he not only had a military force ready to go, but "a government in a box, ready to roll in,"
too. Seven years later, with more American soldiers once again being
sent back into Helmand Province and the Taliban
ascendant in significant parts of it, can there be any question how badly McChrystal's strategy
failed? Today, in fact, more of Afghanistan is under Taliban
control than at any time since 2001. As retired army colonel and Professor Gregory Daddis
observed , "Looking back, the logic flaws become clear." After all, Daddis continued, "how could
counterinsurgents provide security if the population too often saw U.S. soldiers as 'anti-bodies'
invading their body politic?"
Perhaps at this point it won't surprise you to learn that two civilians on the Obama team - Vice
President Joseph Biden
and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (as well as ex-lieutenant general) Karl
Eikenberry - doubted from the start the U.S. military's ability to impose an external solution
on Afghans via such a surge. They were ignored. After all, who knows better than the guys overseeing
the actual fighting?
Which raises the question: How will the Trump administration's generals, now in crucial government
positions, counsel the president regarding Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and North Korea? Predictions
are always a dicey matter, but recent history suggests that we can expect military escalation, which
already seems to be
underway in at least three of those countries. More , after all, remains the option
of choice for America's generals almost 70 years after MacArthur went head to head with his president
over Korea.
What then is to be expected when it comes to the conflict with ISIS in Iraq, the complex, multi-faceted
Syrian civil war, and America's longest war of all in Afghanistan? All signs point to more of the
same. Open up a newspaper or check out a relevant website and you'll find, for example, that U.S.
Afghan commander General John Nicholson
wants a new mini-surge of American troops dispatched into that country, while the U.S. commander
in the fight against ISIS, General Stephen Townsend, may
require yet more ground troops to "win" in Iraq and Syria.
After much
positive and often
fawning news coverage in the wake of his recent Tomahawk missile strike in Syria, it's hard to
imagine that the president won't grant the generals' wishes. In fact, he has already reportedly
turned over decision-making on U.S. troop levels in Syria and Iraq to them. And yet it should
be obvious enough that more
of the same, without even the semblance of credible alternatives or dissenting voices, is an innovation-stifling
loser of an option. Fifteen years later, it doesn't take a genius to know that something about U.S.
strategy hasn't been and
isn't working .
The Choice
So, isn't it well past time for the generals and civilian leaders to ask the obvious question:
Does the U.S. even have the ability to improve such societies via military power? These days, unfortunately,
such thinking rings heretical to martial ears. Yet not to raise such questions is to ensure that
Americans will experience a kind of endless déjà vu in their wars.
What this country needs right now are civilian leaders who think strategically, exude confidence,
and aren't afraid to challenge military advice. Appropriate respect for senior servicemen shouldn't
mean either impulsive adulation or timid apprehension. Civilian policymakers haven't always been
right, but since World War II, the generals have the weaker (and far more hair-raising) record.
Republics are imperiled when a military caste diverges from civil society. Despite the glowing
(if shallow) praise heaped on America's all-volunteer force, it is increasingly
distant from the population in whose name it theoretically fights.
For those of us still in uniform, thoughtlessly soldiering on may sound both stalwart and romantic,
but it rarely amounts to a sagacious strategy. Don't take my word for it, consider the climactic
scene in Once an Eagle , a legendary novel within the American officer corps and long a
staple on every general's recommended professional reading list. This highly
touted , if
ill-understood
, book ends as its protagonist, an aged, decorated general, slowly dies from wounds inflicted
by a Vietnamese "terrorist" bomber. Gasping his final breath, the old soldier dispenses his last
pearl of wisdom to a junior officer: "Remember, Joey, if it comes to a choice between being a good
soldier and a good human being - try to be a good human being "
In war, as in much else, there's often wisdom in abstention. And when it comes to war, sometimes
less is more.
Major Danny Sjursen, a
TomDispatch regular
, is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours
with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis
of the Iraq War,
Ghost
Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife
and four sons near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial
capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department
of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
fnn says: May 12, 2017 at 1:24 am GMT • 100 Words
What's the purpose of this all-powerful US military? To transform much of the world
into a simulacrum of a semi-religious Anglo-Celtic Israel-worshiper? Or turn the people of the
world into a mass of secular hedonist consumerist debtors in servitude to the banks? The
Soviet Union is long dead and every POTUS since 9/11 has said how much we all have to love
Islam except for a tiny band of fanatics.
So what is all the fuss about and why are we worshiping the military?
"... Excellent, concise summary of Cold War and post-Cold War military history. I also thought that during the campaign Trump was broadly outlining a less interventionist approach – with the exception of ISIS. It's clear now his only political philosophy is "flexibility" and he surrounds himself with people of all kinds of persuasions, including neocons. ..."
"... Patrick again draws attention to our over commitment around the world. It is time to implode and focus on issues here at home. ..."
Excellent, concise summary of Cold War and post-Cold War military history. I also thought
that during the campaign Trump was broadly outlining a less interventionist approach – with the
exception of ISIS. It's clear now his only political philosophy is "flexibility" and he surrounds
himself with people of all kinds of persuasions, including neocons. I tend to favor "flexibility"
over a all-neocon administration (Geo. W. Bush) but Trump's "flexibility" is in reality "impulsiveness"
- let's just hope more stable voices prevail inside the White House of the President of the United
States Donald "It's Complicated" Trump, AKA The Apprentice.
Patrick again draws attention to our over commitment around the world. It is time to implode
and focus on issues here at home. We still have an immigration problem. The problem of chronic
unemployment continues to exist. The people that were displaced by the transfer of our industrial
sector overseas continue to haunt us. Student loans are like a millstone around our academic necks.
We bailed out the banksters after giving them an open-door policy to near ad infinitum indebt
our student body. The Fed not only creates money out of thin air, but it is a price setting entity
owned and operated in large foreign bankers; not Federal but Foreign. Does anyone know when setting
wages and prices have been successful? We know the Fed has been a dismal and costly failure. Count
their made in DC disasters since its inception in 1913. The unemployment stabilizer for the young
from the non- elite class is the U.S. military with risk to life and limb. Time to bring back
the military draft without any exceptions then designer wars will be challenged by the vast-unwilling
when war becomes a reality not something to watch on nightly TV. Is there hope? There was absolutely
no hope in the 2016 presidential election. The worst imaginable field of candidates in modern-history
and we are now stuck with Trump and family who seem to enjoy wars, but have not participated in
U.S. wars.
Is Mr. Buchanan aware that these "war guarantees" are a two-way street? Is he aware that Latvians
and Montenegrans have fought for America? And out of proportion to their size?
I believe the question should be more like what is the Pentagons Empire Dreams and Goals?
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military
Personnel
The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since
September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed
Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The
underlying land surface is of the order of *30* million acres. According to Gelman, who examined
2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of *737* bases in foreign lands.
Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically
within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the *Pentagon*
one of the largest landowners worldwide!
"Donald Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?"
It appears he never did nor cared to ..
P.T. Barnum was right again .
We who clamored for an alternate path stuck our jaws out in desperation and were sucker-punched
again .
The Donald laughing all the way as he had no intent to know, care, or understand what he was getting
into or what he wanted to do.
He just wanted to be the Boss .
SO he is; and floundering by the hour.
May I suggest taking a different course here? Why are the 'Peace' Presidents winners change when
in they are in the White House? And for all the complaints of the liberal MSM, why is the MSM
so pro-war? Look the peace writers on the Times are the economist, Krugman, and religious one,
Douthat.
Anyway, I don't think Trump ever understood this because he believed the big mistake of the
Iraq was not winning in 12 months and taking their oil.
USA made a strategic mistake in the 1990s, focusing on the destruction and the weakening of Russia
after the collapse of communism and the collapse of the USSR.
If the US instead went the other way and supported Russia and strengthened its position in the
post-Soviet space and in Eastern Europe, now US would have had a good ally in Eurasia, and not
on what the Baltic dregs and torn by civil war fascist Ukraine.
Eurasia under the control of the United States, anyway, will not take place for any scenario,
but especially now – with the loss of the state of world hegemony.
Eurasia under the leadership of Germany, Poland or Ukraine is the same scenario from the category
of unscientific fantasy.
But Eurasia led by Russia – it was a very real and viable project in the 1990s, the word, alive
now only in a different, less responsive to the interests of the United States, form.
By the way, the project more attractive to US than indicated by the perspective of the hegemony
of China in Eurasia.
Only now, the US should try very hard to, despite the flaws in his politics in the 1990s, to strengthen
the position of Russia, and not any other player as Eurasian leader.
Nonsense. It's perfectly well and good to be exceptional and think of oneself as such. The
issue does one's exceptionalism lead to taking unnecessary risks or needlessly throwing one's
weight around.
I think that is the issue. I think we are also being reminded that our exceptionalism does
always make us right or intimidate others to do our bidding. That in the long run, it might have
been a good idea not to disrupt the lives of others merely because they disagree or live a life
different from our own. It fact, needlessly destroying the life of others for the sake of whatever
– in unethical, something we used to press for, despite our own imperfections.
Nothing quite so empty as undermining other people to get one's way and then attempting to
blackmail with the consequence of your underhanded behavior.
"... "What Is America's Goal in the World?" Total domination. ..."
"... You're conflating Russia and the Soviet Union. No country has been more hegemonic that the US ..."
"... Any country, family, tribe, organization etc. on the rise is driven by the shared concern of expanding the pie. But once the pie gets big enough, the major concern of most participants is increasing their own personal share of the pie. Thus whether or not America has a goal in the world, the goal of the deep state participants is to enrich themselves – to keep the gravy train rolling. ..."
"... Kosovo, Iraq and the recent symbolic (but still murderous) attack on Syria were all openly in defiance of the established rules, to which the US had voluntarily signed up. For the globalists, the rules only have any force when they serve the purposes of the globalists. ..."
For the World War II generation there was clarity.
The attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec 7, 1941, united the nation as it had never been before - in the
conviction that Japan must be smashed, no matter how long it took or how many lives it cost.
After the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, however, Americans divided.
Only with the Berlin Blockade of 1948, the fall of China to Mao and Russia's explosion of an atom
bomb in 1949, and North Korea's invasion of the South in 1950, did we unite around the proposition
that, for our own security, we had to go back to Europe and Asia.
What was called the Cold War consensus - that only America could "contain" Stalin's empire - led
to NATO and new U.S. alliances from the Elbe to the East China Sea.
Vietnam, however, shattered that Cold War consensus.
The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam had repudiated the war by
1968, and switched sides to sympathize with such Third World communists as Fidel Castro, Che Guevara,
Ho Chi Minh and the Sandinistas.
Center-right presidents - JFK, Nixon, Reagan - accepted the need to cooperate with dictators who
would side with us in fighting Communism.
And we did. Park Chung-Hee in Korea. The Shah in Iran. President Diem in Saigon. Gen. Franco in
Spain. Somoza in Nicaragua. Gen. Mobuto in the Congo. Gen. Pinochet in Chile. Ferdinand Marcos in
Manila. The list goes on.
Under Reagan, the Soviet Empire finally fell apart and the USSR then disintegrated in one of the
epochal events of history.
The American Century had ended in America's triumph.
Yet, after 1989, no new national consensus emerged over what ought to be our role in the World.
What should we stand for? What should we fight for?
What Dean Acheson had said of our cousins in 1962: "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not
yet found a role," was true of us.
What was our role in the world, now that the Cold War was history?
George H.W. Bush took us to war to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Soaring to 90 percent approval,
he declared America's new role was to construct a New World Order.
Those who opposed him, Bush acidly dismissed in Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1991, the 50th anniversary of
Pearl Harbor:
"We stand here today on the site of a tragedy spawned by isolationism. And it is here we must
learn - and this time avoid - the dangers of today's isolationism and its accomplice, protectionism."
Neither Bush nor his New World Order survived the next November.
Then came payback for our sanctions that had brought death to thousands of Iraqis, and for the
U.S. bases we had foolishly planted on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia - Sept. 11, 2001.
George W. Bush reacted by launching the two longest wars in our history, in Afghanistan and Iraq,
and announced that our new role was to "end tyranny in our world."
The Bush II crusade for global democracy also fizzled out.
Barack Obama tried to extricate us from Afghanistan and Iraq. But he, too, failed, and got us
into wars in Yemen and Syria, and then started his own war in Libya, producing yet another failed
state.
What does the balance sheet of post-Cold War interventions look like?
Since 1991, we have lost our global preeminence, quadrupled our national debt, and gotten ourselves
mired in five Mideast wars, with the neocons clamoring for a sixth, with Iran.
With the New World Order and global democracy having been abandoned as America's great goals,
what is the new goal of U.S. foreign policy? What is the strategy to achieve it? Does anyone know?
Globalists say we should stand for a "rules-based world order." Not exactly "Remember the Alamo!"
or "Remember Pearl Harbor!" A quarter century after the Cold War, we remain committed to 60-year-old
Cold War alliances to defend scores of nations on the other side of the world. Consider some of the
places where America collides today with nuclear powers: the DMZ, the Senkakus, Scarborough Shoal,
Crimea, the Donbass.
What is vital to us in any of these venues to justify sending an American army to fight, or risking
a nuclear war?
We have lost control of our destiny. We have lost the freedom our Founding Fathers implored us
to maintain - the freedom to stay out of wars of foreign counties on faraway continents.
Like the British and French empires, the American imperium is not sustainable. We have issued
so many war guarantees it is almost assured that we will be dragged into every future great crisis
and conflict on the planet.
If we do not review and discard some of these war guarantees, we shall never know peace. Donald
Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, out May 9, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
"The far left of the Democratic Party that had taken us into Vietnam "
"During his term, Eisenhower will greatly increase U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam
to prevent a Communist victory. U.S. military advisors will continue to accompany American supplies
sent to Vietnam. To justify America's commitment, Eisenhower will cite a 'Domino Theory' in which
a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another
like a 'falling row of dominoes'. The Domino Theory will be used by a succession of Presidents
and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam."
So, in complete honesty, who "took" us to Vietnam?
Pat Buchanan is not an historian. He is a propagandist with an agenda to persuade.
Anonym, May 12, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT • 100 Words
Any country, family, tribe, organization etc. on the rise is driven by the shared concern
of expanding the pie. But once the pie gets big enough, the major concern of most participants
is increasing their own personal share of the pie. Thus whether or not America has a goal in the
world, the goal of the deep state participants is to enrich themselves – to keep the gravy train
rolling. If only one does this, it will not harm the overall much but when most are more
problem than solution, the pie starts to shrink.
Corvinus, May 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Realist
"No country has been more hegemonic that the US."
The British up until the 1950′s would have something say about it in light of their vast colonial
empire crumbling. Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral
nation. It was post-World War II that has America employed the "invade the world, invite the world"
strategy.
Rurik, May 12, 2017 at 4:09 pm GMT • 200 Words
what is the new goal of U.S. foreign policy? What is the strategy to achieve it? Does anyone
know?
to destroy all resistance to global Zionist domination and the Zio/Anglo boot upon the face
of humanity for all eternity. Duh. (please note that the Zio/Anglo boot in question -- will stamp
on the face of the working class Brits as much as anyone else. The Anglo in the Zio/Anglo boot
represents the aristocrat/Royal/pedophile faction of England, [and their like-minded fellow travelers
in Hollywood and NYC, DC, Paris, Berlin, etc..) and not the average British man and women on the
street, who are slated for hell on earth, just as much as everyone else, perhaps a little more
so than others).
~ all of this was foreseeable as soon as Woodrow Wilson handed the keys to the US Treasury
to the world's greediest, most treacherous, tribal and ethnocentric men (war pigs) on the planet.
In fact it wasn't just foreseeable, but inevitable.
Corvinus, May 12, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT
"Fair enough. No country is more hegemonic that the US."
No country is more hegemonic than the U.S. post-World War II. Then you could make a legitimate
case.
Randal, May 12, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT • 100 Words
Globalists say we should stand for a "rules-based world order."
Which of course is every bit as dishonest as you'd expect from globalists. Kosovo, Iraq
and the recent symbolic (but still murderous) attack on Syria were all openly in defiance of the
established rules, to which the US had voluntarily signed up. For the globalists, the rules only
have any force when they serve the purposes of the globalists.
Randal, May 12, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Corvinus
Remember, the United States for most of its history has been an isolationist/neutral
nation
LOL! Amazing how an "isolationist/neutral" nation managed to expand continuously from a small
collection of remote and backward colonies in 1781 to a globe-bestriding empire with a history
of interfering all around the world from South and Central America to the Mediterranean, Russia,
China and the Pacific, and Africa, all before 1939.
The US might have been "isolationist/neutral" in the sense that it saw it as being in its own
interests to mostly stay out of the wars that were conveniently destroying its British and European
rivals, but it was certainly aggressively expansionist and ruthless from the outset in the use
of both military and economic power to impose its will on other peoples and countries, often on
the other side of the world.
It was hegemonic from the start, albeit starting small. A true heir of the British and European
nations which begat it.
What you describe is America's mendacious self-image, not reality.
"... What is the real relationship between international banking, a private central bank, the lack of sovereign credit, and the need to go to war by the USA? ..."
"... This notion of Afghan War as the 'longest war' in US history. I disagree. I think it's better to see it as an Occupation. The Taliban are mostly sitting pretty and not fighting. They are just waiting for the US to leave. ..."
"... The Afghan War ended long ago. It lasted one or two yrs at most. US pacified the enemy and installed a puppet regime. Since then, US has been occupying the nation. The Taliban and other elements(some criminal) hit and run, but the violence has been on a low scale. ..."
"... Indeed, Afghan War ended so quickly that the US began to plan for Iraq. ..."
"... The kind of low-level conflict in Afghanistan has to be seen as part of an Occupation, like Israel's occupation of West Bank. Once the Afghan Occupation ends, then a real war might break out with the Taliban regaining power. ..."
"... Also, Russian economy depends on energy prices. So, US leverage against Russia depends on control of Middle Eastern oil. ..."
"... A better question would be Why is the US working with its allies like Saudis and Turk to aid terrorists in Syria and elsewhere? Never mind 'caring less'. The fact is US has a hand in the terrorist attacks in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... Because all nations have blood on their hands, it's best that US not judge other nations. Like Jesus said when the mob was about to stone Mary Magdalene. ..."
"... Btw, US, as lone superpower, has gotten away with many Pearl Harbors or even worse. The GOOD WAR narrative says Japan deserved what it got for Pearl Harbor. It deserved Tokyo bombing, Okinawa disaster, and nukes too. ..."
"... It seems to me US destruction of Iraq and Libya were built on bigger lies. And the violence and destruction went far beyond Pearl Harbor. After all, Japan was not trying to invade any part of US, not even Hawaii. So, using WWII logic, US deserves 20 nuke hits for its recent sins. But those with Power can do anything. It's good to be the king. ..."
"... 1) The US military is not defending the homeland. (The Invader) 2) In order to win you have to get down and dirty. (Boots on the ground) 3) In war the only winners are the puppet masters. (You fill in the blanks) ..."
"... There is now a single, global economy, unlike the Cold War which (at least in theory), could restrict access to resources. But more realistically, WW 2 was fought in the Pacific because the US could and did embargo oil from Japan. And Germany was able to put up a good fight over half a decade using a quantity of oil that amounted to what we (the US) burn up in a couple of weeks - but unfortunately (for them) needed a couple more weeks worth. ..."
"... Congress has declared war only 5 times. The last time was WW2. Maybe a distinction should be made between formal wars, undeclared wars, police actions and military engagements (under whichever rubric is expedient). ..."
"... " Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad " Note, too, the references to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed. ..."
"... Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment? ..."
"... America delenda est. Great article and great truth telling. ..."
"... American law prohibits "foreign aid" to any country which has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Act" treaty and to any country that will not abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" guidelines on the inspection of nuclear weapons and facilities. Israel refuses to do either, but is STILL the number one recipient of American largesse (foreign aid), loan forgiveness and weapons acquisition, all paid for by the American taxpayers. ..."
"... In addition, AIPAC, which is the most influential foreign lobbying group in the U S A is not required to register as an "agent of a foreign government" WHY?? It appears that our "foreign policy" is formulated in Tel Aviv, and NOT in Washington D C. Look at the 40 or so "dual-nationality" Israeli Americans who fill the seats in Congress, as well as the thousands of dual-nationality Israeli "policy wonks" who are infesting and infecting the federal government State Department. ..."
"... I used to chuckle when I heard people discuss ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government), but no more. ZOG is real, and is detrimental to the existence of the United States of America. When discussing specific congress critters, I make it a point to put (D) Tel Aviv or (R) Tel Aviv after their names, as Tel Aviv is where they get their "marching orders" from ..."
"... There is hardly anyone intelligent outside US who does not understand that the key problem in the World is that US has never felt the pain that it has been inflicting on others since the American-Spanish war of 1898 (aggressor first). It is as if all the morality free scum of the world has gurgled down just into one country. The Western movies explain it well – it was a plague spreading from the East to the West and then all over the planet. ..."
"... Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some Narrative water for the Establishment? ..."
"... Our federal government employs (the taxpayers I mean) US military personnel in *156* countries! Our US Military has bases in 63 countries! The US government owns a total of *737* bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. Territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?5145-Pentagon-One-of-World-s-Largest-Landowners ..."
"... @Kiza You are not the only one - read my comment above please. Prof. Bacevich is official (permitted) opposition critic. Thanks to the regular US MSM diet he reads like a revolutionary to most US zombies. I read him sometimes only to find out what this permitted official criticism in academia looks like - to find out where the minds of US intelligentia (if such thing exists) dwell - how far from the truth even a few intellectual outliers are, those who pride themselves on not being the usual MSM zombies. ..."
"... "12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?" It's funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from Trump, anyone around Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout in the USA on the matter on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types. ..."
"... As long as Afghanistan is the or one of the largest producers of opium, US troops will remain there in order to make sure that illicit demand can result in astronomical profits for those involved. ..."
"... The answer to most of these questions is simple. The U.S. is not a country, it is an Empire like Britain and France before it but it is ruled by Jewish people not Christians. Everything should be clear now. ..."
"... It's downright depressing. We have McCain, Clinton and other Blue Ribbon senators, congressmen, and officials that knowingly funded, armed, and trained what is now ISIS. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen – so much utter destruction, and it just goes on and on. That's just recent memory. The Federal Reserve is pumping out paper like no tomorrow. The government is borrowing it, spending most of it without the constitutional footing to do so. ..."
"... Cultural suicide. The perversion of language, political correctness – you can't trust anything coming from the legacy media. The narratives they are driving are extinguishing Western Civilization. ..."
12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not
have nuclear weapons?
It's funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from Trump, anyone around
Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout in the USA on the matter
on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types.
17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons
proliferator. It supports the Taliban.
But because USSR dared help India to establish nuclear energy, the US aided Pakistan to do
the same. Pictures exist of a giant scaffolding of bamboo being used to install a huge vessel
as part of the first Indian nuclear reactor. They lacked a crane so a swarm of guys pulled it
up into place with ropes!
Thank you Andrew Bacevich. As a former military man and present professor, you have elucidated
many issues which as a layperson, I am not fully aware.
However I have a question if you don't mind. What is the real relationship between international
banking, a private central bank, the lack of sovereign credit, and the need to go to war by the
USA?
15. Our friends the Saudis (I) .
16. Our friends the Saudis (II) .
Given that past Presidents have held hands of, kissed the cheeks of, and bowed before a couple
Saudi Kings, maybe we should call a spade a spade and refer to them as our Lords and Masters.
"Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more "special"
than its relations with a rising power like India? "
Why is your own father more important than Narendra Modi? Great Britain gave us our laws, religion,
language, and the Founding Fathers, and more. India gives us H1-B's. One bad apple can spoil the
whole bunch. Trim your list and throw out the stupid items.
This notion of Afghan War as the 'longest war' in US history. I disagree. I think it's
better to see it as an Occupation. The Taliban are mostly sitting pretty and not fighting. They
are just waiting for the US to leave.
There are skirmishes here and there, but nothing that could be called a war.
The Afghan War ended long ago. It lasted one or two yrs at most. US pacified the enemy
and installed a puppet regime. Since then, US has been occupying the nation. The Taliban and other
elements(some criminal) hit and run, but the violence has been on a low scale.
Indeed, Afghan War ended so quickly that the US began to plan for Iraq.
The kind of low-level conflict in Afghanistan has to be seen as part of an Occupation,
like Israel's occupation of West Bank. Once the Afghan Occupation ends, then a real war might
break out with the Taliban regaining power.
9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their way of life depended on having assured access
to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil
exporter. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national
security persists in Washington. Why?
Why? Because Gulf Oil is still the lifeblood to Asia and Europe. So, if the US is to be the
preeminent superpower, it has to control the energy that its vassals and rivals depend on.
Also, Russian economy depends on energy prices. So, US leverage against Russia depends
on control of Middle Eastern oil.
10. Hyping terrorism: Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents,
drug overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing
terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
Because if a real big one hits, like 9/11, it can mean major disruption. Also, it could mean
political death for whoever's in charge.
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't: Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful
of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far
larger numbers of Arabs?
A better question would be Why is the US working with its allies like Saudis and Turk to
aid terrorists in Syria and elsewhere? Never mind 'caring less'. The fact is US has a hand in
the terrorist attacks in Syria and Ukraine.
17. Our friends the Pakistanis: Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons
proliferator. It supports the Taliban.
But because USSR dared help India to establish nuclear energy, the US aided Pakistan to do the
same. Pictures exist of a giant scaffolding of bamboo being used to install a huge vessel as part
of the first Indian nuclear reactor. They lacked a crane so a swarm of guys pulled it up into
place with ropes!
@The
Alarmist 15. Our friends the Saudis (I) ....
16. Our friends the Saudis (II) ....
Given that past Presidents have held hands of, kissed the cheeks of, and bowed before a couple
Saudi Kings, maybe we should call a spade a spade and refer to them as our Lords and Masters.
24. Moral obligations: When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members
of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to "do something."
But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? Who has a greater claim to
U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country
shattered by the U.S. invasion of 2003?
Because all nations have blood on their hands, it's best that US not judge other nations.
Like Jesus said when the mob was about to stone Mary Magdalene.
There are rare cases when genocide is so horrible that action should be taken, like what happened
in Rwanda. On the other hand, the US public and 'progressives' are fickle too.
When Johnson and Nixon said US must stay in Southeast Asia to prevent communism barbarism,
the progressives mocked the rationale. They said US must leave and let the Asians sort it out.
Given that logic, how could US re-enter to save Cambodians from communists?
Btw, US, as lone superpower, has gotten away with many Pearl Harbors or even worse. The
GOOD WAR narrative says Japan deserved what it got for Pearl Harbor. It deserved Tokyo bombing,
Okinawa disaster, and nukes too.
It seems to me US destruction of Iraq and Libya were built on bigger lies. And the violence
and destruction went far beyond Pearl Harbor. After all, Japan was not trying to invade any part
of US, not even Hawaii. So, using WWII logic, US deserves 20 nuke hits for its recent sins. But
those with Power can do anything. It's good to be the king.
"2 . American military supremacy: The United States military is undoubtedly the world's finest.
It's also far and away the most generously funded, with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage
of opportunities to practice their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything?"
1) The US military is not defending the homeland. (The Invader) 2) In order to win you
have to get down and dirty. (Boots on the ground) 3) In war the only winners are the puppet masters.
(You fill in the blanks)
The Gulf: Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having
assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is
once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North
America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still
qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?
It is more than simply this. As if this isn't enough.
There is now a single, global economy, unlike the Cold War which (at least in theory),
could restrict access to resources. But more realistically, WW 2 was fought in the Pacific because
the US could and did embargo oil from Japan. And Germany was able to put up a good fight over
half a decade using a quantity of oil that amounted to what we (the US) burn up in a couple of
weeks - but unfortunately (for them) needed a couple more weeks worth.
The fact that ISIS was anxious to sell oil on world markets is a good indication that there
is only one use for oil and that is to sell in global markets. We are stuck with WW 2 as the bedrock
of strategic thinking. Hell yes, our current carrier task forces would have been decisive in WW
2, but now are just a high value targets with no proven survivability against cruise missile based
attack. If they are simply for show, a WW 2 era battleship is more impressive to sail into port.
Why fight for a commodity that you can simply purchase? And now, it is on sale. This is like
fighting a war for access to strategic coal.
Congress has declared war only 5 times. The last time was WW2. Maybe a distinction should
be made between formal wars, undeclared wars, police actions and military engagements (under whichever
rubric is expedient).
Using the word 'war' itself (as in the Afghanistan War) seems to give it some kind of credibility.
It this case it would be 'the foreign war to re-establish opium production in aid of the domestic
war on drugs".
That truly brings to mind my favorite Bronstein quote " You may not be interested in war but
war is interested in you". The choice for you young man is to put on the camo uniform or the orange
jumpsuit. Some lucky lads get to do both.
" Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad " Note, too, the references
to the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded
it; in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.
Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying
some Narrative water for the Establishment?
"15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis.
What does that fact signify?"
Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked
at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year
old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?
American law prohibits "foreign aid" to any country which has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation
Act" treaty and to any country that will not abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" guidelines
on the inspection of nuclear weapons and facilities. Israel refuses to do either, but is STILL
the number one recipient of American largesse (foreign aid), loan forgiveness and weapons acquisition,
all paid for by the American taxpayers.
In addition, AIPAC, which is the most influential foreign lobbying group in the U S A is
not required to register as an "agent of a foreign government" WHY??
It appears that our "foreign policy" is formulated in Tel Aviv, and NOT in Washington D C. Look
at the 40 or so "dual-nationality" Israeli Americans who fill the seats in Congress, as well as
the thousands of dual-nationality Israeli "policy wonks" who are infesting and infecting the federal
government State Department.
I used to chuckle when I heard people discuss ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government), but
no more. ZOG is real, and is detrimental to the existence of the United States of America. When
discussing specific congress critters, I make it a point to put (D) Tel Aviv or (R) Tel Aviv after
their names, as Tel Aviv is where they get their "marching orders" from
The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every
other nation on the planet has done so first.
I am guessing that in such imaginary situation the US would get rid of its own nuclear weapons
by dropping them all on Russia and China, if those two were as foolish as to get rid of their
own first. Obviously, US was the first country to develop them, US is the only country which has
used the nuclear weapons to kill, and the only country which could use them at almost any moment
again. Obviously, if US, and its owner Israel, got rid of their nuclear weapons, then there would
be a very good chance that everybody else would and in a peaceful way. Therefore, this sentence
pretends irony, but does a deliberate logical obfuscation. In other words, even when a US person
tries to criticise US, he remains a mental slave of his own tribe. This kind of article is good
for academic circles in US – to show the intellectual bravery to criticise whilst staying within
the confines of the permitted narrative.
There is hardly anyone intelligent outside US who does not understand that the key problem
in the World is that US has never felt the pain that it has been inflicting on others since the
American-Spanish war of 1898 (aggressor first). It is as if all the morality free scum of the
world has gurgled down just into one country. The Western movies explain it well – it was a plague
spreading from the East to the West and then all over the planet.
"When the secrets were revealed, however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment,
so much so that presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington
returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones."
We are pretty clearly at war with Islamic fundamentalism. Or at least they are at war with
us. Attacking the enemy's command and control is a pretty obvious and generally considered entirely
legitimate military tactic in time of war. So is this "assassination" or "murder?" Where is the
line between legitimate killing of enemies and "politically motivated murder" to be drawn? Why?
Generally a good article.
The special relationship with Great Britain needs to be expanded, and not only in the intelligence
sphere – not sneered at so carelessly GB is to formalise a link with the Anglosphere nations
– Oz, Canada, NZ – as part of life after Brexit as an extension of the 5 eyes .
@anonymous
"... Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad..." Note, too, the references to
the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it;
in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.
Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying
some Narrative water for the Establishment?
Weak. What about The Fed, the bull shit 'Debt crisis', the 1% who should be all taxed to the
hilt, the almost total control by the 2% (that infestation of 'you know who'). The working class
that is being screwed by all of the above. The Republitards defending the minimum wage of $7.25
an hour, LOL! Then there is the mention of The Zionist State in only one or two items. Well it
should be in at least items 1, 3, 5. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 24! Oh, I forgot item 22, lol!!
The thinking people in Europe, a growing number, just want to defend ourselves against NATO,
in order not to become a battle field for a nuclear war between Russia and the USA. These thinking
people are quite happy with Russia as a supplier of natural gas, have no desire to make our houses
some 40.000 euro's more expensive, in order not having to import Russian gas, as former EU chairman
Van Rompuy wants us to do.
These thinking people fear Groenlinks, the green leftists, whose objective seems to be, in
order to save the planet, to destroy our country.
These thinking people want an end to ME and N African wars, to save us from yet more immigration,
that makes our social security systems a financial nightmare, and brings us on the brink of civil
warfare.
We also want sanctions against Russia to end, so that we again can export flowers and vegetables.
And these thinking people do not want an European army, that might be used to suppress insurrections
against Brussels, therefore they disapprove of the Ukraine association treaty.
@NoseytheDuke
"15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis.
What does that fact signify?"
Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked
at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year
old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?
Our federal government employs (the taxpayers I mean) US military personnel in *156* countries!
Our US Military has bases in 63 countries! The US government owns a total of *737* bases in foreign
lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. Territory, the total land area occupied by US military
bases within the US and internationally is of the order of *2,202,735 hectares*, which makes the
Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?5145-Pentagon-One-of-World-s-Largest-Landowners
@NoseytheDuke
"15. Our friends the Saudis (I): Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis.
What does that fact signify?"
Oh! Please! Does the author really believe this? Has he done any basic research, such as looked
at Architects & Engineers for 9 / 11 truth? What was that about the attention span of a two year
old? Or, is this very slick disinfo?
@Kiza
You are not the only one - read my comment above please. Prof. Bacevich is official (permitted)
opposition critic. Thanks to the regular US MSM diet he reads like a revolutionary to most US
zombies. I read him sometimes only to find out what this permitted official criticism in academia
looks like - to find out where the minds of US intelligentia (if such thing exists) dwell - how
far from the truth even a few intellectual outliers are, those who pride themselves on not being
the usual MSM zombies.
@Kiza
Yet, many comments here are by MSM Zombies with slanted foreheads, for who Prof. Bachevic is like
an unreachable height of intellectualism. Where is the old unz team of commenters who understood
what was really going on?
I know that Prof. Bachevic has lost his son in the US war on Iraq, but his criticism of US is
still lukewarm and mild in order to be digestible by his US audience.
@anonymous
"... Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad..." Note, too, the references to
the Trump administration as something wholly disconnected from and contrary to what preceded it;
in fact, there has been little change, especially in the areas Bacevich has addressed.
Am I the only reader who senses that this author, even in a critical piece, is carrying some
Narrative water for the Establishment?
12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have
nuclear weapons?
"12. Israeli nukes: What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not
have nuclear weapons?" It's funny that I have never heard a single word about this issue from
Trump, anyone around Trump, or the hysterical gaggle of anti-Trumpites. A true media blackout
in the USA on the matter on all sides. Relegated to the fringe, to conspiracy-theory types.
The explosive devices were carefully placed inside the Triple Towers by the Mossad, when security
was down (on purpose). That's why Israeli "art students" were caught red-handed celebrating after
the Towers went down. These shocking facts are available to anyone willing to turn off his TeeVee
(it's tough; I know) and do a little bit of historical research. You can't make a better start
than Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If anyone is truly interested in knowing the fundamental
political facts of life in the USA today, he should start there. The way the tide of history is
flowing, he may not have the chance in a few years.
Make good use of your mind and your First Amendment freedoms while you still have both.
"The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history
- having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the
Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?"
As long as Afghanistan is the or one of the largest producers of opium, US troops will
remain there in order to make sure that illicit demand can result in astronomical profits for
those involved.
The answer to most of these questions is simple. The U.S. is not a country, it is an Empire
like Britain and France before it but it is ruled by Jewish people not Christians. Everything
should be clear now.
It's downright depressing. We have McCain, Clinton and other Blue Ribbon senators, congressmen,
and officials that knowingly funded, armed, and trained what is now ISIS. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Syria, Yemen – so much utter destruction, and it just goes on and on. That's just recent memory.
The Federal Reserve is pumping out paper like no tomorrow. The government is borrowing it, spending
most of it without the constitutional footing to do so.
Cultural suicide. The perversion of language, political correctness – you can't trust anything
coming from the legacy media. The narratives they are driving are extinguishing Western Civilization.
@Anonymous
"the least corrupt countries in the world are in the Anglo-sphere what does that mean, lads?"
That simply means that the Anglo-sphere has amassed enough wealth, firstly through looting
via colonial conquests, then subsequently to a more covert system of looting, as we have now.
That ill-gotten wealth has helped immensely in the Anglo-sphere attaining a superior level
of, wealth generating, intellectual momentum. Of course, regular injections of other ill-gotten
wealth, oils the system really well.
Coming back to the topic of corruption, when a nation has enough wealth, the need for monetary
corruption within it diminishes. That doesn't mean that the moral corruption required for looting
other nations diminishes too. That fire is still raging in the heart of Anglo-sphere.
The quest to maintain the evil dollar as the reserve currency of the world, at the expense
of millions of lives, is just one example.
Some will argue that the least corrupt are Scandinavian nations, which don't go around invading
other nations, do they? I see them as simply piggybacking on the evil empire (after all people
tend to help their own kind, right?), and in that manner gain handsomely from the spoils of conflict.
Once a cultural error gets "stuck" in the culture, it is difficult to expunge.
@jilles
dykstra That the towers were demolished with thermite seems pretty sure to me, it explains
why most of the steel melted.
But why Mossad ? The towers security firm was headed by a brother of Bush jr, they had all the
time and opportunity in the world to plant explosives in the service areas.
"Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security
persists in Washington. Why?"
A darn good question. My understanding is that the theory is that, while we don't really need
their oil anymore, our allies such as Europe and Japan do.
"How about the Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American
empire as the nineteenth century ended? "
A reasonable question. However, given the period, the choice was not between independence and
American empire.
It was between incorporation into the American empire or into the British, French or German
versions.
Unless we wanted to assume a protectorate over the islands and protect them from conquest.
Something like we did with the Monroe Doctrine.
It is also reasonable to note that the "American empire" over the Philippines almost immediately
began the process of working towards independence, unlike any of the other empires.
"By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese,
Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible than the
Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to kill Syrians today?"
Barrel bombs were called 'blockbusters' or 'cookies' in WW2.
"The 4,000 lb high capacity design was little more than a cylinder full of explosives-it was
unaerodynamic and did not have fins."
November 21st, 2015 Fascists Running America Endorse Nazism. America didn't eliminate the scourge
of fascism in WW II. It shifted its headquarters from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington.
Seriously? Nice trick considering there is no proof that OBL was actually killed by US forces.
None. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bin_laden_death.html
Who cares about Israel's official no-comment policy on its nukes. It has no effect on any nation's
actual policy.
A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference?
Arabs place a low value on each others' lives, which is why they kill each other so often,
over such petty reasons, and with no remorse. Copts should move to Lebanon in my opinion to create
a safe Christian majority country in the middle east. They are not safe in Muslim countries.
These are all great questions in the realm of foreign policy. Each is not asked because the
Elites want it that way. We have at least that many questions relating to race and ethnicity and
religion and immigration and crime rates that need to be asked but are not because our Elites
do not want them asked.
@SolontoCroesus
The premise of the article is bass ackward: neither Italian Fascism nor German National Socialism
harbored goals of international conquest.
Didn't read past the second paragraph: why bother? It's a prime example of what happens when
propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.
If Lendman were able to get his head out of the holohoax pit and look at the "war to end all
war" and "good war" square in the face for what they were, his first paragraph would read something
like,
America's mask is increasingly being peeled away: having worn the mask of "saving the world
for democracy" to eliminate Berlin and Tokyo as counterbalances to its global quest, then occupying
them psychologically and economically, it is now openly running its global war on humanity overtly
from Washington.
Today, it has partnered with likeminded allies, destroying fundamental freedoms, risking the
unthinkable, potential life-ending nuclear war.
@jilles
dykstra That the towers were demolished with thermite seems pretty sure to me, it explains
why most of the steel melted.
But why Mossad ?
The towers security firm was headed by a brother of Bush jr, they had all the time and opportunity
in the world to plant explosives in the service areas.
My nephew just signed the ROTC contract I am devastated to the point of not posting on UNZ
Review anymore .inconsolable grief .so many pointless meaningless deaths for Greater Israel
Although there are several good questions in the piece, there are also many problems, as others
have noted.
Perhaps the most bizarre is number 19, The mother of all "special relationships" .
Now, Mr. Bacevich, the current mother of all "special relationships" ain't the one with ZUK,
no, no it's the one with Israel and its zionist 5th column within ZUSA.
"18. Free-loading Europeans";
This one could be extended to the 'free-loading' Koreans, Japanese , etc. But in reality, ZUSA
is not in ANY of these places to "defend" them , rather ZUSA is there for all the bases and hegemony,
which includes these countries as ZUSA's vassal states, greatly enhancing US imperialism trough
an appearance of multilateralism.
Mr. Buchanan is another one who uses this less than honest formulation.
@Eustace
Tilley (not) You're quite right about Bush's security firm having had the time and opportunity.
They may have placed the explosive devices in the towers. Mossad almost surely had the expertise,
and, most important, the access to the technology. Having the devices obtained domestically might
have left an unnecessary "paper trail" in the supply chain that Israel did not have to concern
itself with.
We will know the answers to these questions (and, of course, 9/11 mysteries and anomalies are
legion) when God-Emperor Donald J. Trump appoints a Special Presidential Commission on 9/11 Events,
with the power to issue subpoenas and place witnesses under oath, later in his first term.
Comparing the long ago white settlement of almost uninhabited America (funny how Cortez and
company always get a pass) with the modern settlement of largely already occupied Palestine is
ludicrous. Other points are very good. America should abandon its empire.
@SolontoCroesus
The premise of the article is bass ackward: neither Italian Fascism nor German National Socialism
harbored goals of international conquest.
Didn't read past the second paragraph: why bother? It's a prime example of what happens when
propaganda is relied upon as the basis for history.
If Lendman were able to get his head out of the holohoax pit and look at the "war to end all
war" and "good war" square in the face for what they were, his first paragraph would read something
like,
America's mask is increasingly being peeled away: having worn the mask of "saving the world
for democracy" to eliminate Berlin and Tokyo as counterbalances to its global quest, then occupying
them psychologically and economically, it is now openly running its global war on humanity overtly
from Washington. Today, it has partnered with likeminded allies, destroying fundamental freedoms,
risking the unthinkable, potential life-ending nuclear war.
"... Worldwide, war memorials and memorial days ensure preservation of such selective remembrance. My home state of Massachusetts also does this to this day by flying the black-and-white "POW-MIA" flag of the Vietnam War at various public places, including Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox - still grieving over those fighting men who were captured or went missing in action and never returned home. ..."
"... Asymmetry in the human costs of conflicts involving U.S. forces has been the pattern ever since the decimation of Amerindians and the American conquest of the Philippines between 1899 and 1902. The State Department's Office of the Historian puts the death toll in the latter war at "over 4,200 American and over 20,000 Filipino combatants," and proceeds to add that "as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease." (Among other precipitating causes for those noncombatant deaths, U.S. troops shot most of the water buffalo farmers relied on to produce their crops.) Many scholarly accounts now offer higher estimates for Filipino civilian fatalities. ..."
"... The payload of bombs unloaded on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos between the mid-1960s and 1973 is commonly reckoned to have been between seven and eight million tons - well over 40 times the tonnage dropped on the Japanese home islands in World War II. Estimates of total deaths vary, but are all exceedingly high. In a Washington Post article in 2012, John Tirman noted that "by several scholarly estimates, Vietnamese military and civilian deaths ranged from 1.5 million to 3.8 million, with the U.S.-led campaign in Cambodia resulting in 600,000 to 800,000 deaths, and Laotian war mortality estimated at about 1 million." ..."
"... On the American side, the Department of Veterans Affairs places battle deaths in the Korean War at 33,739. As of Memorial Day 2015, the long wall of the deeply moving Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington was inscribed with the names of 58,307 American military personnel killed between 1957 and 1975, the great majority of them from 1965 on. This includes approximately 1,200 men listed as missing (MIA, POW, etc.), the lost fighting men whose flag of remembrance still flies over Fenway Park. ..."
Some years ago, a newspaper article credited a European visitor with the wry observation that
Americans are charming because they have such short memories. When it comes to the nation's wars,
however, he was not entirely on target. Americans embrace military histories of the heroic "band
of [American] brothers" sort, especially involving World War II. They possess a seemingly boundless
appetite for retellings of the Civil War, far and away the country's most devastating conflict where
American war deaths are concerned.
Certain traumatic historical moments such as "the Alamo" and "Pearl Harbor" have become code words
- almost mnemonic devices - for reinforcing the remembrance of American victimization at the hands
of nefarious antagonists. Thomas Jefferson and his peers actually established the baseline for this
in the nation's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines recollection
of "the merciless Indian Savages" - a self-righteous demonization that turned out to be boilerplate
for a succession of later perceived enemies. "September 11th" has taken its place in this deep-seated
invocation of violated innocence, with an intensity bordering on hysteria.
Such "victim consciousness" is not, of course, peculiar to Americans. In Japan after World War
II, this phrase - higaisha ishiki in Japanese - became central to leftwing criticism of
conservatives who fixated on their country's war dead and seemed incapable of acknowledging how grievously
Imperial Japan had victimized others, millions of Chinese and hundreds of thousands of Koreans foremost
among them. When present-day Japanese cabinet members visit Yasukuni Shrine, where the emperor's
deceased soldiers and sailors are venerated, they are stoking victim consciousness and roundly criticized
for doing so by the outside world, including the U.S. media.
Worldwide, war memorials and memorial days ensure preservation of such selective remembrance.
My home state of Massachusetts also does this to this day by flying the black-and-white "POW-MIA"
flag of the Vietnam War at various public places, including Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox
- still grieving over those fighting men who were captured or went missing in action and never returned
home.
In one form or another, populist nationalisms today are manifestations of acute victim consciousness.
Still, the American way of remembering and forgetting its wars is distinctive for several reasons.
Geographically, the nation is much more secure than other countries. Alone among major powers, it
escaped devastation in World War II, and has been unmatched in wealth and power ever since. Despite
panic about Communist threats in the past and Islamist and North Korean threats in the present, the
United States has never been seriously imperiled by outside forces. Apart from the Civil War, its
war-related
fatalities have been tragic but markedly lower than the military and civilian death tolls of
other nations, invariably including America's adversaries.
Asymmetry in the human costs of conflicts involving U.S. forces has been the pattern ever since
the decimation of Amerindians and the American conquest of the Philippines between 1899 and 1902.
The State Department's Office of the Historian
puts the death toll
in the latter war at "over 4,200 American and over 20,000 Filipino combatants," and proceeds to add
that "as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease." (Among other
precipitating causes for those noncombatant deaths, U.S. troops shot most of the water buffalo farmers
relied on to produce their crops.) Many scholarly accounts now offer higher estimates for Filipino
civilian fatalities.
Much the same morbid asymmetry characterizes war-related deaths in World War II, the Korean War,
the Vietnam War, the Gulf War of 1991, and the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq
following September 11, 2001.
Terror Bombing from World War II to Korea and Vietnam to 9/11
While it is natural for people and nations to focus on their own sacrifice and suffering rather
than the death and destruction they themselves inflict, in the case of the United States such cognitive
astigmatism is backlighted by the country's abiding sense of being exceptional, not just in power
but also in virtue. In paeans to "American exceptionalism," it is an article of faith that the highest
values of Western and Judeo-Christian civilization guide the nation's conduct - to which Americans
add their country's purportedly unique embrace of democracy, respect for each and every individual,
and stalwart defense of a "rules-based" international order.
Such self-congratulation requires and reinforces selective memory. "Terror," for instance, has
become a word applied to others, never to oneself. And yet during World War II, U.S. and British
strategic-bombing planners explicitly regarded their firebombing of enemy cities as terror bombing,
and identified destroying the morale of noncombatants in enemy territory as necessary and morally
acceptable. Shortly after the Allied devastation of the German city of Dresden in February 1945,
Winston Churchill, whose bust circulates in and out of the presidential Oval Office in Washington
(it is
currently in ),
referred to the "bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though
under other pretexts."
In the war against Japan, U.S. air forces embraced this practice with an almost gleeful vengeance,
pulverizing 64 cities
prior to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. When al-Qaeda's 19 hijackers
crash-bombed the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001, however, "terror bombing" aimed at destroying
morale was detached from this Anglo-American precedent and relegated to "non-state terrorists." Simultaneously,
targeting innocent civilians was declared to be an atrocity utterly contrary to civilized "Western"
values, and prima facie evidence of Islam's inherent savagery.
The sanctification of the site of the destroyed World Trade Center as "Ground Zero" - a term previously
associated with nuclear explosions in general and Hiroshima in particular - reinforced this deft
legerdemain in the manipulation of memory. Few if any American public figures recognized or cared
that this graphic nomenclature was appropriated from Hiroshima, whose city government puts the number
of fatalities from the atomic bombing "by the end of December 1945, when the acute effects of radiation
poisoning had largely subsided," at
around
140,000 . (The estimated death toll for Nagasaki is 60,000 to 70,000.) The context of those two
attacks - and all the firebombings of German and Japanese cities before them - obviously differs
greatly from the non-state terrorism and suicide bombings inflicted by today's terrorists. Nonetheless,
"Hiroshima" remains the most telling and troubling symbol of terror bombing in modern times - despite
the effectiveness with which, for present and future generations, the post-9/11 "Ground Zero" rhetoric
altered the landscape of memory and now connotes American victimization.
calculated that Anglo-American
air forces in the European theater had dropped 2.7 million tons of bombs, of which 1.36 million tons
targeted Germany. In the Pacific theater, total tonnage dropped by Allied planes was 656,400, of
which 24% (160,800 tons) was dropped on the home islands of Japan. Of the latter, 104,000 tons "were
directed at 66 urban areas." Shocking at the time, in retrospect these Japanese numbers in particular
have come to seem modest when compared to the tonnage of explosives U.S. forces unloaded on Korea
and later Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.
The official history of the air war in Korea ( The United States Air Force in Korea 1950-1953
)
records that U.S.-led United Nations air forces flew more than one million sorties and, all told,
delivered a total of 698,000 tons of ordnance against the enemy. In his 1965 memoir Mission with
LeMay , General Curtis LeMay, who directed the strategic bombing of both Japan and Korea, offered
this observation: "We burned down just about every city in North and South Korea both
We killed off over a million civilian Koreans and drove several million more from their homes, with
the inevitable additional tragedies bound to ensue."
Other sources place the estimated number of civilian Korean War dead
as high
as three million, or possibly even more. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war who later served as
secretary of state,
recalled that the United States bombed "everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing
on top of another." In the midst of this "limited war," U.S. officials also took care to make it
clear on several occasions that they had not ruled out
using nuclear weapons . This even involved simulated nuclear strikes on North Korea by B-29s
operating out of Okinawa in a 1951 operation codenamed Hudson Harbor.
In Indochina, as in the Korean War, targeting "everything that moved" was virtually a mantra among
U.S. fighting forces, a kind of password that legitimized indiscriminate slaughter. Nick Turse's
extensively researched recent history of the Vietnam War, for instance, takes
its
title from a military order to "kill anything that moves." Documents released by the National
Archives in 2004 include a transcript of a 1970 telephone conversation in which Henry Kissinger
relayed President Richard Nixon's orders to launch "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything
that flies on anything that moves."
In Laos between 1964 and 1973, the CIA helped direct the
heaviest air
bombardment per capita in history, unleashing over two million tons of ordnance in the course
of 580,000 bombing runs - equivalent to a planeload of bombs every eight minutes for roughly a full
decade. This included around 270 million bomblets from cluster bombs. Roughly 10% of the total Laotian
population was killed. Despite the devastating effects of this assault, some 80 million of the cluster
bomblets dropped failed to detonate, leaving the ravaged country littered with deadly unexploded
ordnance to the present day.
The payload of bombs unloaded on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos between the mid-1960s and 1973 is
commonly reckoned to have been between seven and eight million tons - well over 40 times the tonnage
dropped on the Japanese home islands in World War II. Estimates of total deaths vary, but are all
exceedingly high. In a Washington Post article in 2012, John Tirman
noted that "by several scholarly estimates, Vietnamese military and civilian deaths ranged from
1.5 million to 3.8 million, with the U.S.-led campaign in Cambodia resulting in 600,000 to 800,000
deaths, and Laotian war mortality estimated at about 1 million."
On the American side, the Department of Veterans Affairs places
battle
deaths in the Korean War at 33,739. As of Memorial Day 2015, the long wall of the deeply moving
Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington was inscribed with the names of
58,307 American military personnel killed
between 1957 and 1975, the great majority of them from 1965 on. This includes approximately
1,200 men listed as missing
(MIA, POW, etc.), the lost fighting men whose flag of remembrance still flies over Fenway Park.
North Korea and the Cracked Mirror of Nuclear War
Today, Americans generally remember Vietnam vaguely, and Cambodia and Laos not at all. (The inaccurate
label "Vietnam War" expedited this latter erasure.) The Korean War, too, has been called "the forgotten
war," although a veterans memorial in Washington, D.C., was finally dedicated to it in 1995, 42 years
after the armistice that suspended the conflict. By contrast, Koreans have not forgotten. This is
especially true in North Korea, where the enormous death and destruction suffered between 1950 and
1953 is kept alive through endless official iterations of remembrance - and this, in turn, is coupled
with a relentless propaganda campaign calling attention to Cold War and post-Cold War U.S. nuclear
intimidation. This intense exercise in remembering rather than forgetting goes far to
explain
the current nuclear saber-rattling of North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un.
With only a slight stretch of the imagination, it is possible to see cracked mirror images in
the nuclear behavior and brinksmanship of American presidents and North Korea's dictatorial dynastic
leadership. What this unnerving looking glass reflects is possible madness, or feigned madness, coupled
with possible nuclear conflict, accidental or otherwise.
To Americans and much of the rest of the world, Kim Jong-un seems irrational, even seriously deranged.
(Just pair his name with "insane" or "crazy" in a Google search.) Yet in rattling his miniscule nuclear
quiver, he is really joining the long-established game of "nuclear deterrence," and practicing what
is known among American strategists as the "madman theory." The latter term is most
famously associated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger during the Vietnam War, but in fact
it is more or less imbedded in U.S. nuclear game plans. As rearticulated in "Essentials of Post-Cold
War Deterrence," a secret
policy document drafted by a subcommittee in the U.S. Strategic Command in 1995 (four years after
the demise of the Soviet Union), the madman theory posits that the essence of effective nuclear deterrence
is to induce "fear" and "terror" in the mind of an adversary, to which end "it hurts to portray ourselves
as too fully rational and cool-headed."
When Kim Jong-un plays this game, he is simultaneously ridiculed and feared to be truly demented.
When practiced by their own leaders and nuclear priesthood, Americans have been conditioned to see
rational actors at their cunning best.
Terror, it seems, in the twenty-first century, as in the twentieth, is in the eye of the beholder.
John W. Dower is professor emeritus of history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
His many books include War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War and Embracing
Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War Two , which have won numerous prizes including the Pulitzer,
the National Book Award, and the National Book Critics Circle award. His latest book,
The
Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War Two (Dispatch Books), has just been
published.
"... People should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however, be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the other side's nuclear forces. ..."
The North Korean "crisis" is a Washington orchestration. North Korea was last at war 1950-53.
N. Korea has not attacked or invaded anyone in 64 years. N. Korea lacks the military strength
to attack any country, such as South Korea and Japan, that is protected by the US. Moreover, China
would not permit N. Korea to start a war.
So what is the demonization of N. Korea by the presstitutes and Trump administration about?
It is about the same thing that the demonization of Iran was about. The "Iranian threat" was
an orchestration that was used as cover to put US anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia's borders.
An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed ICBMs (intercontinental
ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching their targets.
Washington claimed that the anti-ABM bases were not directed at Russia, but were for the protection
of Europe against Iran's nuclear ICBMs. Insouciant Americans might have believed this, but the
Russians surely did not as Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons. The Russian government
has made it clear that Russia understands the US bases are directed at preventing a Russian retalliation
against a Washington first strike.
The Chinese government also is not stupid. The Chinese leadership understands that the reason
for the N. Korean "crisis" is to provide cover for Washington to put anti-ballistic missile sites
near China's border.
In other words, Washington is creating a shield against nuclear retalliation from both Russia
and China from a US nuclear strike against both countries.
China has been more forceful in its reply to Washington's efforts than have the Russians. China
has demanded an immediate halt to the US deployment of missiles in South Korea.
https://www.rt.com/news/386828-china-thaad-south-korea/
In order to keep Americans confused, Washington now calls anti-ABMs THAAD, Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense. China understands that THAAD has nothing whatsoever to do with N. Korea, which borders
S. Korea, making it pointless for N. Korea to attack S. Korea with ICBMs.
THAAD in S. Korea is directed against China's retaliatory forces. It is part of Washington's
preparations to nuke both Russia and China with minimal consequence to the US, although Europe
would certainly be completely destroyed as THAAD or anti-ABMs are useless against Russian nuclear
cruise missiles and the Russian air force.
But no Empire has ever cared about the fate of its vassals, and Washington is uninterested
in Europe's fate. Washington is interested only in its hegemony over the world.
The question is: now that Russia and China understand that Washington is preparing for a preemptive
nuclear strike against them in order to remove the two constraints on Washington's unilateral
behavior, will the two countries sit there and wait for the strike?
What would you do?
On April 27 I posted on this website a column, "Washington Plans to Nuke Russia and China."
My column was a report that this was the conclusion of the Russians and Chinese themselves. I
quoted Russian Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian General Staff
and provided links for his expression of concern such as:
https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/
Jus' Sayin'... May 4, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
BTW, I agree entirely with the essential point of this essay, Mr. Roberets. It's obvious to
any rational and informed person that the USA is engaged in a geopolitical strategy to surround
Russia and China with a coordinated anti-ballistic-missile system. The posting of THAAD in the
Korean peninsula is the latest phase of this plan. The USA's establishment seems to be planning
a strategic system that they think will give the USA a first-strike capability and the flexibility
to start a nuclear war with impunity. This plan is insanely dangerous and puts the entire world
at risk of a nuclear conflagration.
But the poignancy of your message is greatly diminished by the overwrought, paranoid style with
which you present it.
dearieme May 4, 2017 at 10:44 pm GMT
Are the people who run the US really prepared to gamble on a guaranteed 100% success
rate for anti-missile missiles? Won't they die too if they are wrong?
Still, it's the simplest way to explain their very odd behaviour. Perhaps they think they can
frighten the Russians and Chinese into surrender. Sounds awfully risky to me.
What I find disturbing in all this is that the U.S. has to know that they can't simultaneously
neutralize Russia and China's entire nuclear arsenals and every means of delivery. But if so then
this means they are ready and willing to sacrifice a portion of the American landmass and tens
of millions of people to nuclear fire just to be the last man standing. Russia has "boomers" or
submarines that can fire nuclear missiles from sea. I don't think the Chinese have that capability
yet but I haven't been paying close attention.
Russia has multiple ways to deliver nuclear warheads and even if our nuclear defenses are only
partially breached that means a terrible loss of life. It seems the U.S. high command has war
gamed every scenario imaginable and thinks we will win with "acceptable" losses which of course
doesn't include they or their loved ones.
We've become as bloodthirsty and psychopathic as the Likud party of Israel. For all intents
and purposes the mover and shakers within our government are either real or honorary Likudniks.
I have to wonder if the South Korean regime change of a few months back wasn't a CIA color revolution
designed to put a puppet into government in SK that would be willing to host these missiles.
It had all the hallmarks:
-Fancy stage with a visual/audio propaganda machine
-Highly coordinated crowd (lighters, etc )
-Trumped up charges
-Demonization of the 'Church of Eternal Life', which is basically just another wacky protestant
op,not a cult. If one looks at the google search results for this church (as opposed to, say bing)
it is clear that they are on google's CIA list of organizations to demonize by leading search
results to propaganda sites
-Use of the media to constantly demonize a single individual (Choi Soon) whose father was adviser
to Ms Park (sounds like a pretty legit advisor to me)
-Ms Park had expressed a desire to work with both China and the US
In Tolkien's Silmarillion
he describes the lineage of Sauron as essentially a fallen angel, aka a demon.
There is no doubt that Washington is run by a host of people who are possessed by demons.
As far as using real names, the reason I don't spell a full name out is not the desire to be
unknown, but to avoid a search engine like google from collating everything I do online into a
search result. Its one thing to be known in a certain circle of the internet, another for any
bloke to pull everything together without context or participation in the actual discussions.
Harry Huntington, May 5, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Paul Craig Roberts
Folks who have seriously looked at the subject cannot help but agree with you. People
should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited
nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects
most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was
understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is
part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good
enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however,
be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the
other side's nuclear forces.
Of course the Russians have not been standing still with all of this. Their S400 system has
capabilities against both US stealth aircraft and ballistic missiles. The Russians make
incremental changes to their systems and the Russian S500 system will have full blown
ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Russians are also deploying their Topol M ICBM
systems, and soon a successor, which is mobile and has multiple maneuverable warheads and
penetration aids designed to defeat US ballistic missile defense systems. Most likely, as it
seems is always the case, the US neocons will trust too much in US technology and will be
unpleasantly surprised by the Russian response to any US nuclear first strike.
The wildcard of course is that a nuclear war need not be fought entirely with nuclear weapons.
US conventional cruise missiles can be launched to target Russian radars. Likewise, however,
the Russian Kalibr cruise missiles can directly take on US ballistic missile defense by
threatening both US sea based defensive systems and land based THAAD systems.
It is easy to picture a scenario where in a crisis Russia strikes first using its
conventional cruise missiles to target US ballistic missile defense sites. US sea based
systems cannot engage in ballistic missile defense if they have to expend all of their
missiles defending themselves from conventional attack. Similarly, a THAAD system is of
limited use if Russians successfully destroy the missiles on the ground, or if they destroy
the radars.
The US was surprised when the Russians used their Kalibr missiles with great success in
Syria. That success created another layer of complexity in the US planning for nuclear war.
botazefa: May 5, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT
It is my understanding that our THAAD deployments are not particularly numerous in
comparison to the existing ICBM arsenal. It is also my understanding that THAAD is not
particularly accurate.
If the author is so thin skinned that he cannot handle disagreement, then perhaps he lacks the
self awareness to label dissenters as narcissists. To put it more plainly, the inability to
take criticism is one of the diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. To
believe that ones comments are so interesting that they invite active espionage on the part of
Mossad and NATO is indicative of grandiose thinking, another diagnostic criteria of NPD.
alexander says:
May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
@alexander
As though perhaps in the final tally we will have hit fifty two of "their" cities and they will
only have hit 20 of "ours" .like Seattle , Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Albany , Denver,
Boston, Charlotte, San Francisco,Richmond, Trenton, Juneau,Wilmington, Raleigh,
Concord,Providence,Detroit, Hartford and Columbia .
Is this "victory "in your mind , Utu ?
Can you really be suggesting this ?
34.Mao Cheng Ji says:
May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
@utu
What is the purpose of anti-ABM installations around Russia and China? What is the purpose of
claims of inflated abilities of these systems? Certainly not to prepare the first strike. It
is to make Russia and China think that they will not win the first strike.
It's exactly the opposite. Modern ABM systems are useless against the first strike with 1500
nuclear ICBMs among god knows how many decoys. They are useful, however, against a much weaker
retaliation strike, provided that most of the enemy's ICBMs have been destroyed (by your first
strike) inside their silos. You will probably lose a few cities, but win Total World
Domination. And that's the game.
"... To begin with, the Libertarians are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. ..."
"... The corporation itself is based on an anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism. ..."
"... One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations to monopolize and move wealth to the top. ..."
"... Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries. ..."
"... Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries. ..."
"... The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked. ..."
"... The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans ..."
"... When the illiberal policies began to be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises and every time the public bails them out. ..."
Excellent interview. Personally I've been listening to so-called alternative media for a very
long time now, more or less since about I finished school (I was reading books by Erich Fromm,
Hans A. Pestalozzi and others at that time) and I read occasionally alternative newspapers and
magazines.
But this has rather dramatically changed now. In fact I more or less completely abandoned the
so-called mainstream media, because at least in my opinion a big part of the mass media here in
Germany has begun to turn into agencies for very radical and destructive policies designed in
part by Brussels and in part by the German government. It doesn't matter which political issue
you look at: The so-called refugee crisis, economical topics, the rise of right wing extremism
in Germany and so on: A big part of the mainstream media systematically shifts attention away
from the really interesting issues.
Take for example the stream of refugees coming to Germany and other European countries. It
could have been a starting point for the German media to discuss what the real reasons for this
so-called crisis are: For example the German, British, French and other weapons exports and what
they are used for. Or the ecomical policies of the European Union, which severely damages the
economies of countries like Senegal or Burkina Faso. But this just doesn't happen. When you turn
on the publicly financed radio stations you hear them discussing technical terms of Germans policies
shutting down the European borders to stop the flow of refugees, but almost no word about what
this means for the desperate people who end up there. It's a very shocking experience to basically
see that even publicly financed media (which we are supposed to be proud of) stay diligently within
the limits of discussion, which according to Noam's and Edward Herman's work you would expect
for commercial media.
Of course you can find journalism here which does not follow these restrictions, but in case
of the publicly financed radio and news programmes you mostly have to wait until late in the evening
(when most of the working population doesn't watch TV or listen to radio anymore) or turn to newspapers
which are sold at only very few places. The media is in a terrible condition here nowadays, at
least in my opinion.
coldflame 1 day ago
philosophers theory says that human cultures demonstrate severe & increasingly polarizing
cycles where the rich get richer & the poor get poorer until the poor are so extremely desperate
that a revolution is inevitable....Then there is a massive redistribution of wealth & things
even out for awhile & then the cycle begins again.
It seems to me that this theory is massively sped up by technology & industry & finance
abuses.
My guess about it is that the power-wacko-wealthy will abuse science & technology to destroy
many billions of people, leaving various levels of slaves to serve them & theirs. Ultimately
it won't work for them but the ego of humanity is so short-sighted & narcissistic that it's
very hard to imagine otherwise. God I hope I'm wrong. We do have a chance at solving major
problems of energy, extinction, food, education, so let's hope for the best.
Siddharth Sharma 3 days ago
Chomsky hits the nail on Bernie's campaign. The energy behind the campaign is great, but it's
very likely to die after the election. Which Bernie also understands as his major hurdle. He has
stated many times, about creating a political revolution, and said that Obama's biggest mistake
was, that he let the mass movement that elected him die.
Bernie wants people to be actively involved in politics, and take rational decisions. When
asked how he intends to tackle Republicans while pushing for his progressive reforms, he replied(on
the lines of), if his campaign was successful there won't be many Republicans to deal with. While
I hope that to happen, it's rather optimistic of Bernie to think so.
Many people are completely missing the point of his campaign, rather worshiping him as an idol,
without understanding the ideals that he stands for. Sanders supporters need to be more mature
and serious, as electing him President will not be a panacea; much will remain to be done.
Callme Ishmael 5 hours ago
Chomsky is always off the mark on American Libertarianism. To begin with, the Libertarians
are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression
principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. His argument about environmental destruction
are countered by arguments by Libertarians about private property and prosecution of fraud and
the behavior of informed consumers in a free market. The corporation itself is based on an
anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation
is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism.
The master-servant relationship is not advocated by most Libertarians. That's absurd. And why
does he think there wouldn't be any private bus systems? And no empathy or private forms of welfare?
One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished
people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress
and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations
to monopolize and move wealth to the top.
Rodrigo Rodrigues 3 days ago
Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries.
Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries.
The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President
Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked.
He admitted he didn't deserve the prize at the presentation. He went on to praise militarism,
and gave tepid support for preventive wars, a war crime. I would like to know Chomsky's opinion
on Donald Trump being a candidate .
EnnoiaBlog 2 days ago (edited)
"The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty
much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans.' -- Noam Chomsky, in interview with Abby
Martin, Oct. 24ish 2015.
MY HERO!!!!!!!
Chris Neglia 1 day ago (edited)
10:00 -- "If a major financial institution gets in trouble, the government will bail it out,
which happens repeatedly--only during the illiberal periods [not free / rights lacking] incidentally.
There were no major failures during the 50s and 60s. When the illiberal policies began to
be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises
and every time the public bails them out.
>>> Well that has consequeces. For one thing that means the credit agencies understand these
corporations are high value beyond the level of what they actually do because they're gonna be
bailed out. So they get good credit ratings, means they can get cheap credit, means they can get
cheap loans from the government, they can undertake risky transactions which are profitable because
if something goes wrong the tax payer will take care of it.
>>>> Net result is: that amounts to practically all their profits. Is that Capitalism?"
The ruling class is seriously rattled over its loss of control over the national political narrative-a
consequence of capitalism's terminal decay and U.S. imperialism's slipping grip on global hegemony.
When the Lords of Capital get rattled, their servants in the political class are tasked with rearranging
the picture and reframing the national conversation. In other words, Papa Imperialism needs a new
set of lies, or renewed respect for the old ones. Former president Barack Obama, the cool operator
who put the U.S. back on the multiple wars track after a forced lull in the wake of George Bush's
defeat in Iraq, has eagerly accepted his new assignment as Esteemed Guardian of Official Lies.
At this stage of his career, Obama must dedicate much of his time to the maintenance of Official
Lies, since they are central to his own "legacy." With the frenzied assistance of his first secretary
of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama launched a massive military offensive-a rush job to put the New
American Century back on schedule. Pivoting to all corners of the planet, and with the general aim
of isolating and intimidating Russia and China, the salient feature of Obama's offensive was the
naked deployment of Islamic jihadists as foot soldiers of U.S. imperialism in Libya and Syria. It
is a strategy that is morally and politically indefensible-unspeakable!-the truth of which would
shatter the prevailing order in the imperial heartland, itself.
Thus, from 2011 to when he left the White House for a Tahiti yachting vacation with music mogul
David Geffen and assorted movie and media celebrities, Obama orchestrated what the late Saddam Hussein
would have called "The Mother of All Lies": that the U.S. was not locked in an alliance with al-Qaida
and its terrorist offshoots in Syria, a relationship begun almost 40 years earlier in Afghanistan.
Advertisement Square, Site wide He had all the help he needed from a compliant corporate media, whose
loyalty to U.S. foreign policy can always be counted on in times of war. Since the U.S. is constantly
in a (self-proclaimed) state of war, corporate media collaboration is guaranteed. Outside the U.S.
and European corporate media bubble, the whole world was aware that al-Qaida and the U.S. were comrades
in arms. (According to a 2015 poll, 82 percent of Syrians and 85 percent of Iraqis believe the
U.S. created ISIS .) When Vladimir Putin told a session of the United Nations General Assembly
that satellites showed lines of ISIS tankers stretching from captured Syrian oil fields "to the horizon,"
bound for U.S.-allied Turkey, yet untouched by American bombers, the Obama administration had no
retort. Russian jets
destroyed 1,000 of the tankers , forcing the Americans to mount their own, smaller raids. But,
the moment soon passed into the corporate media's amnesia hole-another fact that must be shed in
order to avoid unspeakable conclusions.
Presidential candidate Donald Trump's flirtation with the idea of ending U.S. "regime change"
policy in Syria-and, thereby, scuttling the alliance with Islamic jihadists-struck panic in the ruling
class and in the imperial political structures that are called the Deep State, which includes the
corporate media. When Trump won the general election, the imperial political class went into meltdown,
blaming "The Russians"-first, for warlord Hillary Clinton's loss, and soon later for everything under
the sun. The latest lie is that Moscow is sending weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the country
where the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan spent billions of dollars to create the international jihadist
network. Which shows that imperialists have no sense of irony, or shame. (See BAR: "
The U.S., Not
Russia, Arms Jihadists Worldwide .")
After the election, lame duck President Obama was so consumed by the need to expunge all narratives
that ran counter to "The Russians Did It," he twice yammered about "
fake news " at a press conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Obama was upset,
he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation and its packaged very well
and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television. If everything
seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect."
Although now an ex-president, it is still Obama's job to protect the ruling class, and the Empire,
and his role in maintaining the Empire: his legacy. To do that, one must control the narrative-the
subject uppermost in his mind when he used Chicago area students as props, this week, for
his first public speech since leaving the
White House.
"It used to be that everybody kind of had the same information," said Obama, at the University
of Chicago affair. "We had different opinions about it, but there was a common base line of facts.
The internet has in some ways accelerated this sense of people having entirely separate conversations,
and this generation is getting its information through its phones. That you really don't have to
confront people who have different opinions or have a different experience or a different outlook."
Obama continued:
"If you're liberal, you're on MSNBC, or conservative, you're on Fox News. You're reading The Wall
Street Journal or you're reading The New York Times, or whatever your choices are. Or, maybe you're
just looking at cat videos [laughter].
"So, one question I have for all of you is, How do you guys get your information about the news
and what's happening out there, and are there ways in which you think we could do a better job of
creating a common conversation now that you've got 600 cable stations and you've got all these different
news opinions-and, if there are two sets of opinions, then they're just yelling at each other, so
you don't get a sense that there's an actual conversation going on. And the internet is worse. It's
become more polarized."
Obama's core concern is that there should be a "common base line of facts," which he claims used
to exist "20 or 30 years ago." The internet, unregulated and cheaply accessed, is the villain, and
the main source of "fake news" (from publications like BAR and the 12 other leftwing sites smeared
by the Washington Post, back in November, not long after Obama complained to Merkel about "fake news").
However, Obama tries to dress up his anti-internet "fake news" whine with a phony pitch for diversity
of opinions. Is he suggesting that MSNBC viewers also watch Fox News, and that New York Times readers
also peruse the Wall Street Journal? Is he saying that most people read a variety of daily newspapers
"back in the day"? It is true that, generations ago, there were far more newspapers available to
read, reflecting a somewhat wider ideological range of views. But most people read the ones that
were closest to their own politics, just as now. Obama is playing his usual game of diversion. Non-corporate
news is his target: "...the internet is worse. It's become more and more polarized."
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and Fox News all share the "common base line of
facts" that Obama cherishes. By this, he means a common narrative, with American "exceptionalism"
and intrinsic goodness at the center, capitalism and democracy as synonymous, and unity in opposition
to the "common" enemy: Soviet Russians; then terrorists; now non-Soviet Russians, again.
Ayanna Watkins, a senior at Chicago's Kenwood Academy High School, clearly understood Obama's
emphasis, and eagerly agreed with his thrust. "When it comes to getting information about what's
going on in the world, it's way faster on social media than it is on newscasts," she said.
"But, on the other hand, it can be a downfall because, what if you're passing the wrong information,
or the information isn't presented the way it should be? So, that causes a clash in our generation,
and I think it should go back to the old school. I mean, phones, social media should be eliminated,"
Ms. Watkins blurted out, provoking laughter from the audience and causing the 18-year-old to "rephrase
myself."
What she really meant, she said, was that politicians should "go out to the community" so that
"the community will feel more welcome."
If she was trying to agree with Obama, Ms. Watkins had it right the first time: political counter-narratives
on the internet have to go, so that Americans can share a "common base line" of information. All
of it lies.
Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].
The House of War:
The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American
Power
,
Because he used to play in the Pentagon as a kid and demonstrated against
the War in Vietnam outside of of (DIA Director) dad's office window, there is
a lot of interesting chapter and verse to argue the point you both make.
"... Counter-terrorism specialists in the US government knew perfectly well that US regime change in Iraq through military force would give a powerful boost to Osama bin Laden's organization and to anti-American terrorism generally. ..."
"... After it quickly became clear that the US war in Iraq was already motivating young men across the Middle East to wage jihad against the US in Iraq, the chief architect of the occupation of Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, came up with the patently false rationalization that Iraq would be a "flytrap" for jihadists. ..."
"... But Hayden and the CIA had a huge bureaucratic interest in that war. He had lobbied Bush in 2007 to loosen restraints on drone strikes in Pakistan and let the CIA launch lethal attacks on the mere suspicion that a group of males were al-Qaeda. ..."
"... It soon became clear that it wasn't really weakening the al-Qaeda in the northwest Pakistan at all. Even drone operators themselves began privately criticizing the drone attacks for making many more young Pakistanis hate the United States and support al-Qaeda. The only thing Leon Panetta, Hayden's successor as CIA director, could say in defense of the program was that it was "the only game in town" . ..."
"... Barack Obama wanted out of a big war in Iraq. But CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Staff director Gen. Stanley A McChyrstal, talked Obama into approving a whole new series of covert wars using CIA drone strikes and special operations commando raids against al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations in a dozen countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia. At the top of their list of covert wars was Yemen, where al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had just been formed. ..."
"... In late 2011 and early 2012, the contradiction between the US pretension to counter-terrorism in its Middle East policy and the interests sharpened even further. That's when the Obama administration adopted a new anti-Iran hard line in the region to reassure the Saudis that we were still committed to the security alliance. That hard line policy had nothing to do with a nuclear deal with Iran, which came more than a year later. ..."
"... The Obama national security team was willing to take advantage of the considerable military power of the Nusra Front-led jihadist alliance. But it was all done with a wink and a nod to maintain the fiction that it was still committed to defeating al-Qaeda everywhere. ..."
"... AQAP will certainly emerge from the disastrous war in Yemen as the strongest political force in the south, with a de-facto safe haven in which to plot terrorist attacks against the US. And they can thank the war bureaucracies in the US who helped them achieve that powerful position. ..."
"... But the reason for the betrayal of US counter-terrorism interests is not that the senior officials in charge of these war bureaucracies want to promote al-Qaeda. It is because they had to sacrifice the priority of countering al-Qaeda to maintain the alliances, the facilities and the operations on which their continued power and resources depend. ..."
Since 2001, senior Pentagon and CIA
officials have sacrificed American interests in weakening
al-Qaeda to pursue their own interests
New York Times
columnist Tom Friedman outraged many
readers when he
wrote an opinion piece
on 12 April calling on President
Trump to "back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria". The
reason he gave for that recommendation was not that US wars
in the Middle East are inevitably self-defeating and
endless, but that it would reduce the "pressure on Assad,
Iran, Russia and Hezbollah".
That suggestion that the US
sell out its interest in counter-terrorism in the Middle
East to gain some advantage in power competition with its
adversaries was rightly attacked as cynical.
But, in fact, the national security bureaucracies of the
US – which many have come to call the "Deep State" – have
been selling out their interests in counter-terrorism in
order to pursue various adventures in the region ever since
George W Bush declared a "Global War on Terrorism" in late
2001.
The whole war on terrorism has been, in effect, a
bait-and-switch operation from the beginning. The idea that
US military operations were somehow going to make America
safer after the 9/11 attacks was the bait. What has actually
happened ever since then, however, is that senior officials
at the Pentagon and the CIA have been sacrificing the
interest of American people in weakening al-Qaeda in order
to pursue their own institutional interests.
'The only game in town'
It all began, of course, with the invasion of Iraq.
Counter-terrorism specialists in the US government knew
perfectly well that US regime change in Iraq through
military force would give a powerful boost to Osama bin
Laden's organization and to anti-American terrorism
generally. Rand Beers, then senior director for
counter-terrorism on the National Security Council staff,
told his predecessor Richard Clarke
in late 2002, "Do
you know how much it will strengthen al-Qaeda and groups
like that if we occupy Iraq?"
After it quickly became clear that the US war in Iraq was
already motivating young men across the Middle East to wage
jihad against the US in Iraq, the chief architect of the
occupation of Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, came up with the
patently false rationalization that
Iraq would be a "flytrap"
for jihadists.
But in January 2005, after a year of research, the CIA
issued a
major intelligence assessment
warning that the war was
breeding more al-Qaeda extremist militants from all over the
Middle East and even giving them combat experience that they
would eventually be able to use back home. In a
2006 National Intelligence Estimate
, the intelligence
community warned that the number of people identifying
themselves as jihadists was growing and was becoming more
widespread geographically and even the predicted growing
terrorist threats from "self-radicalized cells" both in the
US and abroad.
The war managers continued to claim that their wars were
making Americans safer. CIA Director Michael Hayden not only
sought to sell the flypaper argument on Iraq, but also
bragged to the Washington Post in 2008
that the CIA was
making great progress against al-Qaeda, based mainly on its
burgeoning drone war in Pakistan.
But Hayden and the CIA had a
huge bureaucratic interest
in that war. He had lobbied
Bush in 2007 to loosen restraints on drone strikes in
Pakistan and let the CIA launch lethal attacks on the mere
suspicion that a group of males were al-Qaeda.
It soon became clear that it wasn't really weakening the
al-Qaeda in the northwest Pakistan at all. Even drone
operators themselves began
privately criticizing the drone attacks
for making many
more young Pakistanis hate the United States and support
al-Qaeda. The only thing Leon Panetta, Hayden's successor as
CIA director, could say in defense of the program was that
it was
"the only game in town"
.
Covert wars
Barack Obama wanted out of a big war in Iraq. But CENTCOM
Commander Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Staff director Gen.
Stanley A McChyrstal, talked Obama into approving a whole
new series of covert wars using CIA drone strikes and
special operations commando raids against al-Qaeda and other
jihadist organizations in a dozen countries in the Middle
East, North Africa and Central Asia. At the top of their
list of covert wars was Yemen, where al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula (AQAP) had just been formed.
The CIA again claimed they were doing a splendid job of
hitting AQAP, but in fact the Yemeni offshoot of al-Qaeda
continued to be the primary terrorism threat while the
covert war continued. Three times between late 2009 and
2012, it mounted efforts to bring down airliners and nearly
succeeded in two of the three.
Sharpened contradictions
In late 2011 and early 2012, the contradiction between
the US pretension to counter-terrorism in its Middle East
policy and the interests sharpened even further. That's when
the Obama administration adopted a new anti-Iran hard line
in the region to reassure the Saudis that we were still
committed to the security alliance. That hard line policy
had nothing to do with a nuclear deal with Iran, which came
more than a year later.
At first, it took form of covert logistical assistance to
the Sunni allies to arm Sunni anti-Assad forces in Syria.
But in 2014, the Obama administration began providing
antitank missiles to selected anti-Assad armed groups. And
when the Nusra Front wanted the groups the CIA had supported
in Idlib to
coordinate with the jihadist offensive
to seize control
of Idlib province, the Obama administration did not object.
The Obama national security team was willing to take
advantage of the considerable military power of the Nusra
Front-led jihadist alliance. But it was all done with a wink
and a nod to maintain the fiction that it was still
committed to defeating al-Qaeda everywhere.
When the Saudis came to Washington in March 2015 with a
plan to wage a major war in Yemen against the Houthis and
their new ally, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the
deep state was ready to
give Saudi a green light
. A predictable consequence of
that decision has been to fuel the rise of AQAP, which had
already emerged as the primary threat of terrorist attack on
the US, to an unprecedented position of power.
The biggest winner
As documented
by the International Crisis Group, AQAP
has been the
biggest winner in the war, taking advantage of state
collapse, an open alliance with the Saudi-supported
government and a major infusion of arms – much of its
provided indirectly by the Saudis.
Endowed with a political strategy of playing up AQAP's
role as champion of Sunni sectarian interests against those
Yemenis whom they wrongly call Shia, AQAP controlled a large
swath of territory across southern Yemen with the port of
Mukalla as their headquarters. And even though the Saudi
coalition recaptured the territory, they maintain a strong
political presence there.
AQAP will certainly emerge from the disastrous war in
Yemen as the strongest political force in the south, with a
de-facto safe haven in which to plot terrorist attacks
against the US. And they can thank the war bureaucracies in
the US who helped them achieve that powerful position.
But the reason for the betrayal of US counter-terrorism
interests is not that the senior officials in charge of
these war bureaucracies want to promote al-Qaeda. It is
because they had to sacrifice the priority of countering
al-Qaeda to maintain the alliances, the facilities and the
operations on which their continued power and resources
depend.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and
journalist specializing in US national security policy,
received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011
for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear
Scare
. He can be contacted at
[email protected].
Reprinted from the
Middle East Eye
with the author's permission.
"... On April 17 th , Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon" , and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations: ..."
"... March 14 th , the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada . ..."
"... April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan ..."
"... On April 7 th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists ..."
"... April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border ..."
"... April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command. ..."
"... April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO ..."
"... April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe ..."
"... On April 13 th , the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) ..."
"... April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zo r killing hundreds of people ..."
"... April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea ..."
"... April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe ..."
"... April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan . The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region". ..."
"... April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively ..."
"... On April 16 th , the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s. ..."
On April 15th, Zero
Hedge bannered
"Doomsday Bunker Sales Soar After Trump's Military Strikes", but this growth in the market
for nuclear-proof bunkers is hardly new; it started during the Obama Administration, in Obama's second
term, specifically after the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine, next-door to Russia, got taken
over in 2014 by a rabidly anti-Russian government that's backed by the U.S. government.
This boom in nuclear-bunker sales is only increasing now, as the new U.S. President, Donald
Trump, tries to out-do his predecessor in demonstrating his hostility toward the other nuclear superpower,
Russia, and displaying his determination to overthrow the leader of any nation (such as Syria and
Iran) that is at all friendly toward Russia. For earlier examples of feature-articles on this booming
market for homes that allegedly would enable buyers to survive the first blast effects, and the most
immediate nuclear contaminations, of a Third World War, see
here, and
here,
and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here.
Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal
government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship
(continuation of America's current dictatorship)
to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they'd already have destroyed (along
with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one
knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be
no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on
the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout,
so that groundwater soon would also be unusable - and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic;
so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.
No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be
unacceptable to the "military-industrial complex" including the U.S. government, but in 2014
a "limited,
regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan" was computer-modeled and projected to produce
global ozone-depletion and "the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years", which
"could trigger a global nuclear famine". But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of
the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order
to survive WW III is simply wasting money.
But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose
preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip
on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about
this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon
Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying
bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan.
On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don't even feel the need for a good
computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they've got money to burn and a craving to experience
'the ultimate thrill', and don't want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.
After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with
the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government
(which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for
President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence,
considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established
on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal
government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly
announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it - so, nothing can yet be said about
it.
The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or
her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside
that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be
no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny
at all.
On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The
Saker," headlined
"Trump has
lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump
is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:
Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in "The Daily Beast" a year ago,
on 8 April 2016,
"CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis
doesn't necessarily want to be president-but that's not stopping a group of billionaire donors from
hatching a plan to get him there". Though none of the alleged "billionaires" were named there,
one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert
Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential
group pushing the "regime-change in Iraq" idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for
the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since
been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those "billionaires" were, they've now
gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running
foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more
than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase
passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs
to place the military into an 'emergency' situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a
major invasion. That 'emergency' might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline
of events that Humor documented is aiming.
As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a
U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not
the 7,000
nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the
chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense
on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military
alliance after the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America's
aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia's
former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004,
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine
into NATO, and these five countries hadn't even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of
the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America's allies, but some states in the
U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy's obsessive intent
for global empire - to include Russia.)
Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that's
losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory
(now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia's side, allowing such military conquest
of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading
Russian territory for Russia's continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies' grabbing
of Syria (on 'humanitarian grounds', of course - as if, for example, the Sauds aren't far more brutal
than Assad). After the traditional-forces' invasion of Russia, Russia's yielding its sovereignty
over its own land has never been part of Russia's culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies
of the U.S., then launching all of Russia's nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America's invasion-allies,
would be a reasonably expected result. Here's how it would develop: On America's
side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other
than the Sauds' own 9/11 'false flag' attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia's crushing
its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited
war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America's invasion and occupation
of Vietnam.
However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia
would accept anything less than America's total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW
II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany's total surrender, at the end of that war.
If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably
play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially
by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians
as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin's view as well. If America
did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather
than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S.
side's invading troops in Russia so as to 'win' the overall war and finally conquer Russia.
It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons - and thus an entirely different type of historical
outcome after the war.
Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW
III. Russia's sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to
the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S.
(both as "Republicans" and as "Democrats"). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America's
aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America's
rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It's just an
ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a 'nuclear-proof
bunker' will get what he or she thinks is being bought - safety in such a world as that.
It won't exist.
False. We have a simulation, and it is far worse than people can even imagine.
[...
Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and
medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.
Another reason why USSA is in hurry to have the war with Russia ASAP is that they know that
very soon - if not even now in the present, USSA ICBM defense is outdated and 100% ineficient
against the newest Russian ICBMs, if by any bad chance Russia launches the 1st strike Disney Land
USSA is Bye Felicia without even a chance to retaliate.
"... I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired. ..."
"... It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals ..."
"... well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after. ..."
"... his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand. ..."
"... Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. ..."
"... Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control. ..."
"... We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. ..."
In
March of last year, Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone warned the world :
"we're going to war - either hybrid in nature...or a hot war (which will destroy our country).
Our citizens should know this, but they don't because our media is dumbed down in its 'Pravda'-like
support for our 'respectable', highly aggressive government."
"As much as we may disagree with Donald Trump (and I do) he's right now target number one of the
MSM propaganda -- until, that is, he changes to the anti-Kremlin track over, God knows, some kind
of petty dispute cooked up by CIA, and in his hot-headed way starts fighting with the Russians ...
I never thought I'd find myself at this point in time praying for the level-headedness of a Donald
Trump . "
Stone was correct and in a
Facebook
post tonight expresses his disappointment at Trump and disgust for The Deep State (and America's
wilful ignorance).
"So It Goes"
I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was
wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found
his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war
in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still
mired.
It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the
handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals -- and he's being
praised for it by our 'liberal' media who continue to play at war so recklessly. What a tortured
bind we're in. There are intelligent people in Washington/New York, but they've lost their minds
as they've been stampeded into a Syrian-Russian groupthink, a consensus without asking -- 'Who benefits
from this latest gas attack?' Certainly neither Assad nor Putin. The only benefits go to the terrorists
who initiated the action to stave off their military defeat.
It was a desperate gamble, but it worked because the Western media immediately got behind it with
crude propagandizing about murdered babies , etc. No real investigation or time for a UN chemical
unit to establish what happened, much less find a motive. Why would Assad do something so stupid
when he's clearly winning the civil war?
No, I believe America has decided somewhere, in the crises of the Trump administration, that we
will get into this war at any cost, under any circumstances -- to, once again, change the secular
regime in Syria, which has been, from the Bush era on, one of the top goals -- next to Iran -- of
the neoconservatives. At the very least, we will cut out a chunk of northeastern Syria and call it
a State.
Abetted by the Clintonites, they've done a wonderful job throwing America into chaos with probes
into Russia's alleged hacking of our election and Trump being their proxy candidate (now clearly
disproved by his bombing attack) -- and sadly, worst of all in some ways, admitting no memory of
the same false flag incident in 2013, for which again Assad was blamed (see Seymour Hersh's fascinating
deconstruction of this US propaganda, 'London Review of Books' December 19, 2013, "Whose sarin?").
No memory, no history, no rules -- or rather 'American rules.'
No, this isn't an accident or a one-off affair. This is the State deliberately misinforming the
public through its corporate media and leads us to believe, as Mike Whitney points out in his brilliant
analyses, "Will Washington Risk WW3" and "Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road," that something
far more sinister waits in the background .
Mike Whitney, Robert Parry, and former intelligence officer Phil Giraldi all comment below. It's
well worth 30 minutes of your time to read. Lastly, below is a link to Bruce Cumings's "Nation" analysis
of North Korea, as he again reminds us of the purposes of studying history.
Mike Whitney, "Will Washington Risk WW3 to Block and Emerging EU-Russia Superstate," Counterpunch,
http://bit.ly/2oJ9Tpn
Robert Parry, "Mainstream Media as Arbiters of Truth," Consortiumnews,
http://bit.ly/2oSDo8A
Mike Whitney, "Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper," Counterpunch,
http://bit.ly/2oSDEo4
Bruce Cumings, "This is What's Really Behind North Korea's Nuclear Provocations," The Nation,
http://bit.ly/2nUEroH
Can we wake up before it's too late? I for one feel like the John Wayne veteran (of war) character
in "Fort Apache," riding with the arrogant Custer-like General (Henry Fonda) to his doom. My country,
my country, my heart aches for thee.
FIAT CON -> knukles •Apr 19, 2017 8:22 PM
Everything is finite on this planet except the US$, I can't see how believing this will
cause any trouble. /s
gregga777 -> SallySnyd •Apr 19, 2017 7:44 PM
"One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex
can fight and win wars?"
The truth is that America, as a deliberate policy, does not win wars. Dragging out wars
(e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) produces far greater revenues
and profits for the War Profiteers and Merchants of Death that control United States foreign
policy. They all deserve bullets to the back of the neck for their evil takeover of the United
States and their willingness to sacrifice the lives of millions of people to their evil,
illegal and Unconstitutional Wars of Aggression.
well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for
it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he
was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after.
yeah, i've come to see him as a bit of fatuous idiot in some interviews, he sure has got his
own achille's heel and hasn't offered every last truth on the subject, but who has done more
to popularize critical thinking and research on it than him? i'm forever grateful for that
his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new
american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than
good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut
out of hand.
Let it Go •Apr 19, 2017 8:12 PM
Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use
psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of
their country should be considered naive. To many people America is more than a little
hypocritical when they criticize other countries for trying to gain influence considering our
history of meddling in the affairs of other countries.
Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just
how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their
spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and
questions whether we have lost control.
trump is perhaps the best president for the deep state...... a president who doesn't really
care about anything too much.
he has been a carefree billionaire playboy all his life, never gets to involved in any fight,
as he isnt all that bright, so he just
moves along when things get tough.
he betrayed the USA
Anonymous IX •Apr 19, 2017 9:46 PM
A very simple question.
Why has Trump completely reneged on his promise to stay out of foreign wars and regime change?
Not only Syria but Yemen. Why has Trump placed the U.S. in a needless confrontation with
Russia? Before the election, he spoke about establishing strong economic relations with other
countries in favor of the U.S.
Part of making "American Great Again" involves staying out of foreign wars which do not
concern us and using our monies to re-educate and protect the diminishing American worker.
Mr. Stone is right.
Akhenaten II -> Anonymous IX •Apr 20, 2017 12:44 AM
Trump works for Israel and the jewish mob. Always has.
We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. The only saving grace is
that this play is nearing its last act before they knock the entire theatre down, to be
abandoned like the Coliseum.
100 Words
@dearieme
"Funny patriotism where they're most revved up to kill other Koreans". You
could say that of the American "patriots" of 1776 who were revved up to kill
fellow Britons.
{You could say that of the American "patriots" of 1776 who were revved up
to kill fellow Britons.}
You could also say that about the 4 year long
US Civil War.
Both sides considered themselves very patriotic Americans, yet were revved
up to kill each other to a total of about 785,000-1,000,000 KIA. Considering
US population was about 20-25 million around then, that was huge number of
dead.
October 18, 1994 Remarks on the Nuclear Agreement With North Korea William J. Clinton
Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework
document on North Korea's nuclear program.
By championing Mr. Assad and condemning American "aggression," President Vladimir V. Putin of
Russia seemed to be burying the idea that he could somehow cooperate with the Trump administration
to end the conflict on his terms.
The solidarity with Damascus is likely to cause problems for Russia in the long run, analysts
said, although Mr. Putin probably cannot be persuaded to loosen his embrace any time soon.
The Russian government often takes its time to react to major world events, but the Kremlin issued
a prompt statement early Friday castigating the United States for the missile strike on Al Shayrat
airfield in retaliation for Syria's chemical weapons attack.
The Russian Ministry of Defense vowed to strengthen Syria's air defense systems, sent a frigate
on a port call and froze an agreement with the United States to coordinate activity in Syrian air
space.
"... Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?! ..."
"... The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie. ..."
"... I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood they shed. ..."
"... The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its South Korean proxies. ..."
"... This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. ..."
"... No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed they did) ..."
"... There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week. ..."
"... China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves. ..."
"... I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China. Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise? Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up. ..."
"... It is utmost stupidity. Trump is parking US war ships in reach of North Korea, Russia and China. Now he depends on them not to do anything. ..."
"... If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind. ..."
"... China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do. ..."
"... Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc. ..."
"... why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down.. ..."
"... This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens the US. Of course, the opposite is more true. ..."
"... Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now, disgusting. ..."
"... NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse. ..."
"... Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie. ..."
"... One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the area. ..."
"... I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop. ..."
"... This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war. ..."
"... Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again, what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept this tremendous blunder? ..."
"... At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China. ..."
"... Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead. ..."
"... Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo. ..."
"... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
"... The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans." ..."
"... Anyways, cornering Iran is the goal that the US/Israel trying to accomplish, at least from reading the pattern of activities. Slippery slope indeed. ..."
"... The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production plants. ..."
"... The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought. The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and physical experiments on real people. ..."
"... The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician. ..."
"... From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control escalation. ..."
"... North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated. ..."
"... If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ? ..."
"... IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe ? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;) ..."
"... Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy of tension' goes on and on ... ..."
"... "The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks, again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted. ..."
"... Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ..."
"... Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda bullshit the MSM saturates us with. ..."
"... Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China 'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ? ..."
"... I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China is because of that rather stark reality. ..."
"... ...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable: The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations, and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy... ..."
"... "...On the admission of [U.S.] General Ridgeway's Head Office, more POWs died in United Nations camps than in North Korean camps..." http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2013/05/revisiting-history-of-korea-again-part-4.html?m=0 ..."
"... China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800 Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400, also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly. ..."
"... US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol Limited will testify. ..."
"... It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster to win the day? ..."
"... Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware of this before. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that. ..."
"... "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a place unsuitable for life," he explained. ..."
"... I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars. Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed. Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country, they were willing to gamble everything to have it all. ..."
"... This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the US become more threatening. ..."
"... A primary problem there is that they have convinced at least 20% of those 300M to be human shields in the service of Empire. ..."
"... In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation. ..."
"... it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa. ..."
"... "Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy" trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track. ..."
"... Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today. ..."
"... Wide ranging fascinating interview with former high ranking CIA intelligence officer, Robert David Steele https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfYLA7FCqQ ..."
"... If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot. ..."
"... The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century. Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars would be needed. ..."
"... we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/ ..."
"... Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff ..."
"... A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent). ..."
"... ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because they ran out of other targets in some way). ..."
"... Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks. Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force. ..."
"... The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential election in the South. ..."
"... As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be in South Korea. ..."
"... The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will be front and centre in the campaign. ..."
"... South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM. ..."
"... who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ... the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash. ..."
"... The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. But the US managed to create a security conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for North Korea. ..."
"... South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional. ..."
"... Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement, Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about the THAAD installation. ..."
"... "The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society, an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers. ..."
"... Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen' (from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid! ..."
"... According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together. ..."
"... This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook. ..."
"... I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though. Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views of a few people I talk to in SK though. ..."
"... What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression. Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on? ..."
"... Don't know about Russia but I have some thoughts re. China. Xi made it clear to Donald that China would support Kim if NK is attacked i.e WW3. ..."
"... Wikileaks, Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification. ..."
"... Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees '. ..."
Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations
when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose
them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?!
As b show, North Korea is the rational, but no one in our "free" western media brings these
fact up.
No wonder western populations dont have any faith in their states and media.
I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have backed
away apparently..
Another key consideration from a strategic military perspective, re the massive extensive military
'exercises' by US/SK annually is such can and have been used historically in war to create a sense
of routine & normalcy, so if the Nth should be complacent, and its been going on for decades,
a surprise attack can be launched and have devastating effects, even thought the Nth is on 'annual'
'alert'.
Maintaining heightened readiness, to
Stand To! , stand
ready for an attack, especially daily before dawn and prior to & after sunset, bayonets fixed,
eye-peeled, adrenaline pumping, day after day, when the extended 'exercises' run, year after year
after year is very difficult psychologically for the troops involved, corrosive of morale and
discipline, and the Empire is very cognizant of this indeed.
I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have
backed away apparently..
China doesn't have the option of backing away because a North Korea threatened by AmeriKKKa
is also a China threatened by AmeriKKKa. I hope Trump knows what he's doing because the Chinese
most certainly do know what they're doing.
The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda
relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie.
The oozing sore of a Cold War that never ended, that was really a Hot War for millions, now
threatens to metastasize into Total War. I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly
due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood
they shed.
The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce
and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues
and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its
South Korean proxies.
The imposition of a state of tension by the west is all the west
seems capable of with the result in the current situation and any time a solution is proposed
that could lead to a lessening of tensions the west either sabotages or outright rejects the initiative.
This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in
China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. The only fix that I can see is an
economic collapse in the west that leads to a pull back from western imperial outposts as they
become too expensive to maintain. This can only take place with the demise of the Federal Reserve
Note (USD) as the world reserve currency which is printable in any amount the western elites desire
in maintaining their grip and domination through imperial dictate over the rest of the world.
End this financial death grip and the rest follows very very quickly.
No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness
what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed
they did)
The USA has always believed the myth that WW2 saved the economy from the Great Depression and
that the country would have slide back into depression without a war to fight --- hence the
cold war and all the CIA wars ever since. Then came the "destroy the middle east" for the
sake of Israel. (or oil or whatever)
The USA remains today the greatest impediment to world peace that there is. The USA may set
off nuclear war and the destruction of all civilization at some point.
If you parse Obama's Nobel prize acceptance speech he hints at the theoretical model he used
to cut off chances for peace anywhere. With China's premiere in the room, no less.
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times,
it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes
lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach
- and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive
regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
Effing liar. America offers the choice of an open door to North Korea? Ha. We like our indignation
without cream and sugar, to maximize purity.
There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see
this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week.
China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North
Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves.
@ Posted by: Jeff Kaye | Apr 14, 2017 10:04:05 AM | 4
All honor & respect to you Invictus , for daunting, tireless & seemingly endless endeavor.
Deepest & abiding respect indeed, Sir/Madam. Wishing you & yours safety & joy this Easter. '
Vale, Pax Tecum '.
I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was
a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and
nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China.
Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise?
Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up.
If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a
comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion
you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind.
@ 8, China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern
is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do.
If Trump actually is dumb enough to strike, the Chinese will happily stand by and watch him
hang himself. Just as promised at Mar-a-Lago.
+1 on that. Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average
westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea
whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always
react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc.
thanks b... many good comments already too! thanks folks.. @12 lysander - bang on example of how
ignorant most folks remain.. why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where
their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down..
Good article, b. This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea
is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens
the US. Of course, the opposite is more true.
It's important to note that every country that disagrees with the US is called crazy. Al-Assad
is a "butcher", an "animal", a "dictator who kills his own people". Every time the US wants regime
change they first vilify the leader of said country to turn him into a non-human entity that should
be feared and loathed. This self-justifies the impending destruction of the country, which after
all happened "for its own good."
If I told you ten years ago that the defacto American diplomat to North Korea Dennis Rodman would
get kicked out of the country for getting drunk and taking a shit in a Pyongyang hotel; and that
WWE hall of famer and reality TV star Donald Trump would threaten to attack North Korea as POTUS...
would you have believed me?
Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies
could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now,
disgusting.
Kudos b putting this together. That was some digging.
Here is my 2 dumb questions: will the person who did the tallying of the MOAB taking out the
36 in Afghanistan be sent to NK for a similar task? Not to be crass, but given it was the "mother
of all bombs" should the Pentagon folks not be embarrassed to release the count? KROI.
China warns, and this from Her Majesty's paper, The Telegraph.co.uk with video interview:
LINK
"World 'on the brink of thermo-nuclear war', as North Korea mulls test that could goad Trump"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Trump, as we have observed, does not enjoy being goaded - fights back when he is accused of
having small hands.
And Kim Jong-Un? Well never mind.
~ ~ ~ ~
Wish all abundant blessings this Easter. We may not see 2018.
Imo, the main reason AmeriKKKa is threatening Korea at this time is because Xi scared them,
and their freedom of navigation charade, out of the South China Sea. And now they're adding blackmail
to the provocation by putting NK between them. It's cowardly and stupid, which is why I said I
hope Trump knows what he's doing, because it doesn't look that way to me.
A violent conflict in NK will create a NK refugee problem which, as history illustrates, is
AOK with AmeriKKKans but no-one else.
And if Xi has scared AmeriKKKa once, he can do it again.
NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first
tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse.
Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions
more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie.
So why should Kim give up his nukes, where's the benefit?
For anyone even marginally interested in the issue of NK vs SK - please take time to listen to
this interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A
(actually, 2 2-hr interviews).
Historian Bruce Cumings looks way back in trying to explain
the peninsula and its troubles. One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect
excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not
say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the
area.
Trump is not a huge moron. He is an actor - pretending to be a moron for his moron fan club. He
is very convincing. Superb acting. Terrific. An Armada of Stagecraft. Unfortunately, his moronic
behavior leads to moronic and zany consequences.
I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could
have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop.
IMO, if anyone it is Trump that have "scared" the chinese or rather baited the Chinese with
good trade deals and have got the word from the chinese that they wont rescue NK nor attack US
if US feel like attacking NK. This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato
will support his coming war.
b, this occasion, your writing is very one-sided. You left out (as did all the commentators to
this moment) the decades of brinksmanship by NK, demanding as much as $50 million annually from
all the presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments.
Consider this: (who ever is in charge of the WH now or last time, etc.) does not matter as
much as "perhaps" that entire region, and the multiple layers of MIC/Deep State folks/their proxies
in Congress in the USA, are finally fed up with the brinksmanship for cash to keep that guy's
family and supporters in power, and now that NK lunatic has raised the anti to the nuke level
(thanks Bill for helping them out there in the 1990's)... it looks like the Pentagon will work
the decisions at their level as we now see in real-time.
I served a recent tour there. "Ready to Fight Tonight" is not just a motto with South Korea.
They have lived it since 1953 and they are really tired of it.
Could you rephrase your whole chunk of text, it makes no sense, US dont "pay" North Korea anything
and the lunatic is not in NorthKorea but in the White House allied with your dear South Koreans.
@30
You've likely absorbed too much MCM (c - corporate) reporting; for a more complex understanding
of the subject, pls listen to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A
- that is you're interested in learning, as opposed to just repeating MCM talking points.
@ Posted by: E Ring 46Z Vet | Apr 14, 2017 12:51:46 PM | 30
Respectfully, your comments are very one-sided, and you appear to be profoundly ignorant of
the entire genesis of the Korean v US conflict and the motivations and conduct of involved parties
since the days of the Kuomintang (KMT), Chiang Kai-shek, in the Chinese Civil War starting in
1940 but especially US actions from Sept 1946 and 1949 onward, as well as relevant USSR/Chinese
involvement.
Should you be interested there is significant detail in posts re 'Forgotten & buried History'
of which you may be oblivious in the last three threads posts, or not.
If you served in SK, ' Ready to Fight Tonight ', then why did you not bother to actually
learn something of the Korean history, if only the last 70 years, with you and your buddies lives
'on the line', as opposed to merely regurgitating 'kool-aid' propaganda & misinformation ?
It said Mattis would "reaffirm key U.S. military alliances," and "discuss cooperative effort
to counter destabilizing activities and defeat extremist terror organizations" during the April
18-23 tour. In Israel, he will hold talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the statement
said.
.......
Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organizations they are talking Hezbollah.
It is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.
@ Posted by: From The Hague | Apr 14, 2017 1:20:25 PM | 36
Have been involved in detailed discussions that have carried thru the last three threads re
Korea covering from 1940, to the critical events of Sept 1945, then thru to 1949 and just as important
1949 onwards, PRECEDING the Korean War of '50 ... many extracts, numerous links/sources/references,
from multiple participating posters. Hm, suppose start around here:
I you come here for "neutral" piece that give equal weight and view to all sides you are in
the wrong place. No author does that anyway and there are mountains to read that always highly
endorse the U.S. side on each and every issue. I am not from the States and have a way more neutral
view than you will find in your media. But I am not one sided. I have my moral position, my conscience
and I follow it. I know what the U.S. has done to Korea - unnecessarily and for what I consider
nefarious reasons.
I also know that the claim NoKo was "demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the
presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments." is stupidly wrong.
It was only Clinton who made a deal with NoKo which included for the U.S. side the delivery
of oil and grain and the building of two civil nuclear reactors in North Korea. North Korea, in
exchange, was to stop all nuclear work it had proceeded with including its own building of civil
reactors which it urgently needed for electricity. It was a deal. Both side got something out
of it.
It was Clinton who broke that deal. It was Clinton who never delivered on his promises. The
delivery of oil and grain was slow and ended early. Only the foundations of the reactors were
build (by North Korea). No components were delivered. Bush only officially ended the deal Clinton
had already renegaded on.
"demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43"
Should take lessons from Israel and demand 3 Bil. 50 mil is chump change. How much do you think
these annual maneuvers cost? More to the point, isn't it interesting that the US's war budget
is practically unlimited, while money spent on peace is always too much.
You probably support tax cuts for oligarchs while bitching about money squandered upon the
poor, homeless and ill.
Also very highly recommend the following article and embedded links/references re Korea and
consequences/issues surrounding detailed expert factual analysis re possible war here:
Posted by: Outraged | Apr 12, 2017 8:38:58 PM | 248, 'Is There A New U.S. Syria Policy? Is
There One At All?' thread. Cheers.
I wonder how warm and fuzzy the USA would be if NK had 60+ years ago, devastated our population
with the bloodlust described by MacArthur, yet still had 50,000 troops stationed all along the
Mexican border(DMZ)with nuclear capabilities that in an instant could destroy Houston, Austin,
Dallas, Phoenix and Los Angeles??? Somehow I hear screaming and howling coming from the bowels
or our esteemed Washington overlords. Kim's behavior is no more foolish.
Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again,
what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic
allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept
this tremendous blunder?
Is the US going the full John McCain? China rising, pivot on Asia behind schedule. Resources Diverted
back to Middle East when Obama's headchoppers threatened US oil at Erbil. More resources for the
pivot on China with Russia's re entry into the world of hard power.
At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should
have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China.
Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short
on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead.
So US going full John McCain to make up for time lost / ground lost through the Obama years?
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 37
I still think it's a one-front war. Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an
ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops
and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting
regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo.
Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organisations they are talking Hezbollah.It
is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.
US is in no position to launch any serious military operation as of now, certainly not against
Iran, not to speak about Russia. Bombing something? Sure, as long as it is stand-off weapons and
no US casualties. Yet, US is under pressure to "perform" something because, as of lately things
are not going too well for US in general and her military in particular. Consider all these plans
a self-medication. Per China, China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now, not does she
want to risk losing the access to US markets.
For those wondering what book the page is from, it's Napalm: An American Biography by Robert
Neer, Belknap, 2013. Using google, enter this exactly into the search box: macarthur "biblical
devastation resulted" hit search and the top result will take you to the page. (The actual url
is about 4 lines, so I refrained from posting.) I do suggest reading the next several paragraphs,
but they are not for the squeamish as what's described is 100% revolting. If after reading the
text you cannot fathom why the North Koreans detest Americans more than anything else, then you'll
make a perfect Neocon and ought to join Cheney and Co.
Thanks b for posting that extract provided by Jeffery Kaye!
No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat
the experience.
Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton
with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees
from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood.
Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first
class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).
PAKISTAN'S Parliament rejected a Saudi request to dispatch troops to combat Houthi rebels in
Yemen, much to the chagrin of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). When Pakistan joined the Saudi
led 34 nation military alliance, Iran took offence believing itself to be the target. Pakistan
thus found itself between a rock and a hard place. Stung by the sensitivities of both its friends,
Pakistan has had to rethink its diplomatic overtures to maintain the right balance between
Tehran and Riyadh.
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:14 PM | 45
Succinct overview recap, though very pessimistic ;)
Its occurred to me you may not fully follow, with utmost respect, what I've referred to on
occasion as: no key indicators re logistics/materiel mandatory pre-deployments with minimum ~3-6
months lead times, ONCE, a decision to go to War, or an Op that risks War breakout, any War, has
been taken and formally committed to, before the War or risk 'of' Operation, can commence ?
To do so without such pre-deployments well in advance of boots-on-the-ground, ships firing
armaments or aircraft launching strikes, ie engaging in Ops that have inherent escalation to War
risk, virtually guarantees failure and defeat should a War subsequently breakout ... Lieutenants
study tactics, Field officers/Commanders/Generals/Admirals study logistics, to paraphrase numerous
famous military commanders, especially smarmy/cheeky/insubordinate military logisticians ;)
SmoothieX12 47 China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now
That is a good reason for the US to act now. Look up the Rand Corp report - Thinking the Unthinkable.
Report finance by the pentagon as a military strategy for taking down China.
In the report, if the US acts now, they have a good chance. In five years time it will it will
be 50/50 and in ten year it is all over for the US. By then China will be militarily superior
or at a point when any US force projection against China will be totally destroyed very quickly.
I still read this blog from time to time, but this very issue is why I almost never comment
anymore. North Korea is to the Left as Israel is to the Right, and it infuriates me. The decades
of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts-- basically
70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified because... "America"
spelled any various number of ways is eeeeeeeevil.
I live in South Korea and have for the past 15 years. I posted a story here in 2012, shortly
after Kim Jong-un came to power, about a defector badmouthing North Korea. B chastised me for
believing such propaganda and responded with a linked story about how Kim Jong-un had created
an agricultural revolution resulting in a surplus of crops that year and was a hero as a result
of it. I am in South Korea.
Kim Jong-un had been in power for less than a year. The time of year was very, very early Spring
and the ground in South Korea was still frozen and no crops of any sort had been planted at all,
so I know they could not possibly have been planted yet in the north. Yet I was the one believing
in baseless propaganda. There's just no way to have any rational debate when the subject is as
sacred a cow to the residents here as North Korea is. You'll catch abuse for your comment daring
to suggest any culpability whatsoever for poor, innocent bystander North Korea, but I wanted to
reassure you that there do exist a small minority of us who appreciated what you had to say.
The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against
humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters
and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans."
However, that doesn't excuse the remainder of the planet's citizenry from demanding an end
to the criminal actions of the Rogue United States.
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 2:15:00 PM | 52
Thought scenario ... US launches attacks and starts War with China, no virtually 'non-concealable'
6 month mandatory preparation lead-time ... however unlikely, events don't go well for PLA ...
China assesses at risk of conventional defeat ... however unlikely, no possibility to continue
to conventionally resist or recover for an extended conventional conflict or guerilla campaign...
fires a demonstration tactical nuke (no casualties) to send a message re de-confliction/de-escalation,
or else ... US either stands down or its MAD. Game Over.
Alternately US just goes MAD straight up and risks it all with a supposed surprise First Strike
(highly improbable to adequately conceal) ... only a few Sino nukes make it to Stateside, yet
enough to wipe out 80Million+ instantly and same number in initially non-KIA casualties of varying
degrees plus turn to 'glass' half a dozen major cities ... well armed citizens response/reaction
to their new post-apocalyptic lives of joy & happiness ?
Thanks for proving how well the South Korean state propaganda work, you are basically calling
for war against your own country (or perhaps you are not even a native korean?) and your own people,
and you are calling people here crazy?
The 'Big Event' that Kim Jong Un boasted of, and had 'everyone' paralyzed in fear of nuke tests
- the grand opening of a new mass residential area in Pyongyang.
As others have stated, this whole mess is yet another US creation - the consequence of a 'nukes
for oil' deal that the US reneged on - NK would cease nuke development in exchange for eased sanctions.
ISLAMABAD: Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on Thursday assured the National Assembly that Pakistan
would not become part of any alliance against a Muslim state.
Responding to a calling attention notice, he said that the terms of reference (TOR) of the
Saudi-led military alliance would be unveiled by Saudi authorities next month.
He said that the TOR of the alliance, which is to be led by former Chief of the Army Staff
Gen Raheel Sharif, and its aims and objectives will be presented in parliament before formally
deciding whether Pakistan should become part of it or not.
"We have committed to safeguarding Saudi Arabia's soil for the safety and sanctity of the
two holy sites - Makkah and Medina - but we will not become part of any conflict against any
Muslim state, including Iran," the defence minister said, responding to the notice moved by
Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) MNA Dr Shireen Mazari.
In Libya, the three states seem to be in lock step, supporting Khalifa Haftar, for example.
In Palestine, a theatre long abandoned by the Arab leaders, Cairo has a deep-seated interest
and is backing the anti-Hamas Mohammed Dahlan, who is also very close with the ruling family
in the UAE.
In Yemen, the Egyptian regime has announced its plan to maintain its limited presence, although
Cairo's unwillingness to expand this presence is another source of disagreement with Riyadh.
The issue on which there is the most daylight between Cairo and Riyadh, however, is the
most significant conflict affecting the region today: the Syrian war.
While Riyadh has backed forces opposed to the regime since the outset, Cairo has moved from
a position of ambivalence to open support for the regime.
...
Although rumblings of an Egyptian military presence in Syria have not been substantiated,
Egyptian rhetoric and diplomatic efforts have firmly supported Assad. Most recently, Cairo
abstained from a key vote in a UN Security Council resolution that would have imposed sanctions
on the Syrian government, no doubt to the displeasure of the Saudis.
This position is more consistent with the Egyptian regime's outlook; Sisi rose to power
on an anti-Islamist platform and is waging a war against a small scale insurgency in the Sinai.
The Trump administration's policy goals in the region seem to align with Sisi's vision of supporting
authoritarian regimes against Islamists. This agenda puts both Trump and Sisi into Assad's
camp.
For this reason, it seems that Sisi's dream of a joint Arab military force will not materialise
anytime soon, at least not with joint Egyptian and Saudi participation.
Without agreement on Syria, this endeavor to unify Arab governments under his leadership
is dead on arrival, as the Syrian conflict is currently the most significant security threat.
The US laid a similar (though smaller scale) trail of destruction in Germany at the end of
WWII.
The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two
US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air
raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production
plants.
The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on
the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought.
The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects
of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and
physical experiments on real people.
I have been giving your posts a lot of consideration. How to tie the logistics and so forth
lead time, to what we are seeing take place?
create major incident, congress quickly votes for war?
Can the US deploy faster than we have seen in the past? Most US wars since WWII have been wars
of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing.
The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth
is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now
to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia,
one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was
the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of
any Australian politician.
The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything,
no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement.
I think what we will see in the next few years will be much different to the last 70 or so
years. If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded
by other currencies taking up market share.
I believe US will act, and that means taking down China as China is currently the number one
threat to the US. China simply continuing the way it is, manufacturing, trading ect will take
down the US.
The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.
At the same time, China and Russia are working to prevent the US from going to war.
What you have said about lead time does have to be taken into account to try and work out US
strategy. Does the US need another Pearl Harbour to get its population on a war footing for the
coming war with China? Sink a few useless aircraft carriers, similar to battleships being sunk
at Pearl harbour when WWII was a aircraft carrier war and battle ships were largely obsolete?
US think tanks like Brookings and Rand. Fronts for the 0.01% ? US policy roughly follows the lines
put out by these type think tanks.
The decades of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts--
basically 70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified
because...
following on from the defeat of Japan at end WWII occurred without any similar actions prior
to, concurrent with and subsequent to events of the Korean War, and the issues are purely of Left
& Right 'isms', not basic matters of Humanity, then frankly, you're viewpoint/position is wilfully
documented counter-factual, IMHO. Have seen no 'abuse' as you assert.
You live in SK ? Respectfully, please enlighten us as to the history of the island of Jeju
from Sept 1945 thru to today, as an example, maybe comment on the abandoned truth & reconciliation
inquiries/compensation and the persisting existing community divisions thru to this day, hm ?
From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control
escalation. Conventionally, North Korea is a punching bag. But I also would be very careful
with any (I underscore--any) supposedly "reputable" US analytical source assessments of anyone.
Overwhelming empirical evidence testifies to the fact that often they have no idea what they are
talking about.
Kim Jong-un orders evacuation of Pyongyang: report
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the
city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in
accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated.
If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other
currencies taking up market share.
Stepping back from fundamental military strategy/necessities ...
If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves
and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD
first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and
win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions
do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ?
IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated
in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed
US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe
? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;)
Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy
of tension' goes on and on ...
Another thing to consider now when looking at US actions... US have pinned all their hopes for
military dominance on the F-35. Thirty years of R&D, a trillion dollars, and all they have produced
is a flying scrapyard. The F-22 is a top aircraft, but they scrapped production to concentrate
all resources on the F-35. I read not long ago that production of upgraded Super Hornets is about
to kick off again.
The F-35 has put the US too far behind. By the time they have designed and produced another
5th gen or later version aircraft, it will be all over for the US.
These shifts in the South Korean polity, particularly the rise in anti-Americanism, confront
the Bush Administration with a policy dilemma: how to manage the U.S.-ROK alliance while pursuing
a more confrontational approach toward North Korea than that favored by many, if not most,
South Koreans.
You make good points Outraged. Will wait and watch, but I have a bad feeling that comes from a
lot of small, on their own, seemingly inconsequential events/moves.
Opinion polls taken over the past few years generally have found that large majorities of respondents
favor a partial or total withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, though most holding this
position say they favor a drawdown unless there are improvements in North-South Korean relations;
few favor an outright withdrawal.
It is not just F-35, it is a combination of factors of strategic, technological and operational
nature. Take a look at LCS program or at the cost of SSBN Ohio-class replacement--a single hull
for $8.1 billion. This is more than Russia spent on all 8 of her latest state-of-the-art SSBNs
of Borey-class (Project 955, 955A)--3 afloat, 5-in different stages of readiness.
The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.
"The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer
adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib
chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks,
again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted.
Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant
read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed
prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ... since then, and now, the window
has closed and the opportunity lost ... the vassals you refer to have been as suborned as they
are now since the late '40's, they just are now led by such incompetents that they don't have
the sense to conceal that they are, bought & paid for, bobbleheads. Yet, they are good time opportunists
and no guarantee of staying the course should it come to a potential WWIII, see Germany/Italy/etc
...
Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda
bullshit the MSM saturates us with.
If more people read this the outrage would force the fascist US government to back off.
Of passing interest...according to CGTN World Today, April 15, China and Russia's foreign ministers
spoke by telephone on Friday to discus stability on the Korean Peninsula.
Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China
'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all,
given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re
supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good
time vassals) ... any ?
Perhaps the most important yet neglected fact related to the build-up for war with China is
the lack of preparing the ignorant US citizenry via the sort of dehumanization campaign waged
at Islam/Muslims. Heck, just the great preference for Chinese food makes such a campaign more
than difficult--the Yellow Peril proclamations of the past long ago ceased to resonate. Plus,
I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and
raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the
Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China
is because of that rather stark reality.
Yonatan @62--
Thanks for your reply. Napalm was developed at Harvard and the book was published by one of
Harvard's publishing houses. Given its current attitude, I bet Harvard would now call its own
published work Fake News, and disallow it from classrooms while removing it from libraries.
Monolycus--
The following extracts are from Australian National University Professor Gavan McCormack's
Target Korea: Pushing North Korea To The Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe and detail just which
side did most of the murdering:
"At the outbreak of war in 1950, one of the first acts of the [South Korean] Rhee regime was
to order the execution of political prisoners, whose deaths were in due course attributed to atrocities
by the incoming Northern forces...Declassified U.S. documents indicated that `more than 2,000'
political prisoners were executed without trial in the early weeks, hundreds of them were taken
out to sea from the port of Pohang and shot, their bodies dumped overboard...Throughout the country,
according to Gregory Henderson, then a U.S. Embassy official in Seoul and later a prominent historian
of Korea, probably over 100,000 people were killed without trial or legal warrant. Investigations
into all this have scarcely begun...
"When Seoul was recaptured by U.S. and South Korean forces perhaps as many as 29,000 Koreans
were executed on suspicion of collaboration with the North...The occupation of Pyongyang and many
other cities and villages above the 38th parallel [by South Korean forces] was characterized by
atrocities...According to one estimate, 150,000 people were executed or kidnapped...
"The official U.S. Army report at the end of the [Korean] war gave 7,334 as the figure for
civilian victims of North Korean atrocities, a small fraction of those now known to have been
executed by [government of South Korean leader] Rhee in the first moments of the war alone...
"...The Taejon Massacre...became the centerpiece of the U.S. case for North Korean brutality...A
U.S. Army report on the massacre, including graphic photographs, was published around the world
in October 1953...
"At Taejon, a town of about 160 kilometers south of Seoul, a massacre undoubtedly occurred...
"...It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the most brutal North Korean atrocity in the South
was actually a Southern atrocity in a brutal ongoing civil war...
"...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the
American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern
massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable:
The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations,
and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy...
Re US war manufacturing base. Where is the MIC at now? US is by far the largest manufacturer of
military hardware. The assembly of the final product has not been offshored. How much do they
import in the way of raw or processed materials? Steel smelting, rolling ect - Aluminium - Titanium?
Rare earth metals required for high tech military is imported from China, North Korea has the
other known large recoverable rare earth reserve. Any US war with China would most likely be a
naval missile war, something along the lines of the Rand report?
Any US war with China would most likely be a naval missile war, something along the lines of
the Rand report?
China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until
recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800
Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400,
also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly.
China's very weak spot navy-wise is their submarine force, despite some good SSKs, PLAN's nuclear
submarine component is atrocious--a generation or two behind what Russia and US operate. So, for
now it is a mixed bag. Plus there is an issue of targeting, I don't know if Russia will make her
Liana system available to China. Can China today sink US nuclear carrier? Possibly, In 5-7 years
it will become not only possible but highly probable.
US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens
to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once
mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol
Limited will testify.
It would be far cheaper, saner and moral to obtain rare earth minerals and other goods via
trade than expanding industrial capacity, instituting a military draft, outfitting such a force,
then waging a war for conquest.
I tried for some 15 minutes to find the comment you wrote about and can not find it.
But two remarks:
byongjin policy ('progress in tandem' or 'move two things forward simultaneously') was developed
and implemented years before Kim Jong-un came to power. He (more precise: those who are behind
him) made it an official party policy and created the slogan long after the program had started.
The first nuclear test in NoKo was 2006 - five years before him. The deterrence effects were already
in place as well as a lessened conventional positioning, the economic trend was already positive.
I may well have berated you about the uncritical quoting of a North Korean defector. These
are notorious liars. Their income in South Korea was reported to be paid by the secret service
in dependence of the media splash they create.
There is huge amount of fake horror stories about North Korea in the South Korean (esp. Chosun
Ilbo) and global press. Much of it is planted by the South Korean government. U.S. media have
thankfully stopped to regurgitate most of the stories for now as too many
turned out to be false .
North Korea hacked Sony? No it did not. It was an
insider hack by a former Sony IT person. Sony made the "North Korea hack" up to escape culpability
and to sell an otherwise unsellable bad movie.
Kim Jong-Un kills his half brother by having an unprotected person smear highly toxic VX in
his face in a very public place in Malaysia? The person who does that gets not hurt one bit? Check
the life style of his half brother - girls and drugs and rock&roll - lots of drugs and lots of
alcohol. The dude much more likely had a heart infarct and the rest was made up like the other
stories above.
North Korea did and does some outrageous stuff. So did and do other countries. How many alleged
"communists" and "sympathizers" did the various dictatorships in South Korea kill under U.S. tutelage?
Thousands? Ten thousands? A hundredthousand at least. How many sabotage acts did they engineer
in North Korea? How many were hurt by those?
I am not blind on one eye. But the anti-NoKo propaganda is similar to the propaganda that created
the war on Iraq fever. It is now even more important to look from the other side and to write
that up, not just some pseudo-concerned "all sides are bad" pieces.
Looking in vain for the old Monolycus comment I came across a piece I wrote in 2012.
Therein I quote Tariq Ali from a piece
he wrote about his
1970s visit to North Korea. This bit from the end of the piece on the U.S. position under Bush/Obama
is enlightening:
Over lunch I asked her about [the Bush administration] plans for North Korea. She was cogent.
'You haven't seen the glint in the eyes of the South Korean military,' she said. 'They're desperate
to get hold of the North's nuclear arsenal. That's unacceptable.' Why? 'Because if a unified
Korea becomes a nuclear power, it will be impossible to stop Japan from becoming one too and
if you have China, Japan and a unified Korea as nuclear states, it shifts the relationship
of forces against us.' Obama seems to agree with this way of thinking.
It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster
to win the day? Anon1 @80 put up a good link. It is one of the things that has me worried.
What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type
culture - US can overcome all no matter what?
- North Korea has some good reasons to not trust the US.
1) In the 1990s they had a deal with the US, in which the US would supply Nort Korea with oil
in return for a suspension of their nuclear program. But the US didn't deliver on theri promises.
2) In 2003 or 2004 the US made some serious movements that did suggest that the US was preparing
a MAJOR attack on North Korea. Under secretary Paul Wolfowitz also made some remarks that would
suggest such a move.
3) The G.W.Bush administration (2000-2008) deliberately increased tension with North Korea.
What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type
culture - US can overcome all no matter what?
Both. I am not sure that I can correctly estimate a percentage of both. Let me take a wild
guess: bluster/bluff-60-65%, Doolittle--35-40%. The foundation of Pax Americana is a mythology
of the "best military in the world", without this myth the whole house of cards begins to fold.
It was folding with increasing speed since circa 2008 and accelerated tremendously in 2014.
Great that you swing by every so often. But I am not sure why you are offended when people
criticise your point of view. That's what comments are for. And that's why this blog is here.
To present an alternative view to mainstream lies. And just because you live in South Korea does
not mean you have an objective view of the situation there. In the bigger picture, the mad dogs
in the US government do all the things you mention, but no doubt because they are America they
are ignored and their actions declared righteous. The agreements are historical and it was not
North Korea who backed away, broke them or refused to consider them. North Korea has the tightest
sanctions on earth and so b's reporting about the rationale for North Korea's actions is timely.
Instead of the insidious propaganda we get from Western media. Enjoy yourself in South Korea.
Just remember who invaded who there and who is causing mayhem in the rest of the world. Hint;
it is not Kim Yong-Un.
An old saw, but a profound truism, 'No Battleplan survives first engagement with the enemy'.
So Rands 'plan' ain't worth much ... secondly, if you go into combat/war without actually considering
the enemies own moves/counters/plans/actions, then you've already lost before the first shot is
fired.
For example, the Chinese have built an autobahn grade highway which ends ~10Kms short of the
China-Afghan border, they have 3 combined arms army groups including air divisions from the adjacent
Western Military Region they could send over that border pass, after getting the combat engineers,
sweating hard and using machinery, to finish the final stretch in a matter of hours ... the remaining
army group & numerous Police divisions could secure the military region, as its isolated from
potential threats other than Indian border effectively.
Within 3-4 days forced march, worst case, they've crossed the Iran-Afghan border and the ME
is toast ... concurrent and co-ordinated with similar capabilities from Russia, the ME is toast.
And in conjunction with Iran free to wipeout the GCC's pathetically unprofessional non-commital
'green' 'parade only' militaries.
What has the US got, pre-positioned to prevent it ?
The conventional forces that NATO used to have deployed, pre-positioned and in number to defend
a USSR, now RF, multi echelon armored deep penetration into EU, no longer exists ...
The Bundeswehr is a shadow of its glory days as an armored/mechanized shield during the Cold
War, now periodically ridiculed for not having sufficient MGs or ammunition to train with on joint
training exercises ... War ready in 2017 ?
The nuclear and non-nuclear subs of both sides would promptly slaughter each other in a mutual
knife-fight, sudden death, whilst taking out the majority of the Carriers, US/UK/FR ... the remainder
of the Carrier group escorts exist and are designed/configured to defend/protect & shield the
carrier, not very useful once its at the bottom of the ocean along with all the strike aircraft,
pilots, support crews and sailors ...
Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers
to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware
of this before.
Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new
reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with
the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which
in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for
export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that.
Also thanks to Karlof1 for being the tireless terrier that he is in hunting down the information
about US-allied atrocities during the Korean War.
I would like to pose to Monolycus and the other South Korean-based commenter the challenge
of explaining how South Korea rapidly recovered from total war devastation in the early 1960s
to the point where in 1988 the nation's capital could host the Summer Olympic Games. This all
took place in the space of less than 30 years. If you both can do this convincingly and somehow
mention Park Chunghee as an enlightened free-market democratic capitalist ideologue, rest assured
I will be blown away.
American Technological progress is probably stymied by the manner in which it is conducted. That
is to spread contracts for hardware/software/parts among competing states via state representative
congressional bag men. Wasting time and money in the process. Hoping for cost overruns and delays
which increase profits. Small wonder the state-of-the-art US warplane is shit.
I'd have to question Kims sanity if he OK's a missile or nuclear test at this time. Trumps obviously
a mad man trying to show how tough he is in order go terrorize countries and maybe his own citizens
into submission. However, he has the means to execute the destruction. The MSM will be behind
him all the way and Americans love war because God blesses them and they believe they are the
good guys fighting evil and making the world safe for liberty and Democracy. American exceptionalism
they call it.. The citizens as a group might be the most insane of all of these entities. Certainly
the dumbest.
B @ 92: I should think Air China's flight cuts are due to people suddenly cancelling flight plans
after the threats made by the Trump government against Nth Korea.
Anticipating though that if the US were to make the first move against Nth Korea, Air China's
flights back and forth between China and Nth Korea are going to be very full. I believe there
are some 2 million Koreans living in China (mainly in Manchuria) and many if not most of them
have family in Nth Korea. Beijing must consider preparing for a refugee exodus into China's northeast
provinces if there are as yet no plans.
mmm... well something major is brewing. What is smoke and mirrors and deflection and what is the
real US strategy?
Syria, Korea,
Mattis cooking up a plot with GCC+Isreal = Iran
Wow - I'm impressed with this approach from China. But they still need to be a bit stronger about
denying the US the right or the chance to attack NK. Even Russia has several times sent a fleet
to Syria. China should do this to ward off the Hegemon.
interesting discussion on the likelihood of war, upcoming.
i think certainly outraged has the 'rational' analysis of war well in hand. but i don't think
that war is rational in, literally, the end.
i think the 'smartest guys in the room' in the us are not military types, but financial types.
the same guys who run the hedge funds run the 'rational analysis' and forecast the 'outcomes'
of wars, purely imaginary. and they have the rest of the world backing down before the 'overwhelming'
might of the us wehrmacht, though a good part of their analysis is based on their own 'funny money'
based 'power', which is only as good as everyone else's willing suspension of disbelief. no 'rational
actor' would not back down, they say, in double negative. they're reductionists, and their results
only hold true in the very much reduced world they've disconnected, bottled, and simulate their
'trades' in.
i think there is a very real chance that they'll take us all over the edge, especially now
that they have the donald himself unequivocally - well for him - on board. we'll see, won't we?
we won't be safe from all this until after the air has been let out of their financial balloon,
for good this time, and they are no longer the 'smartest guys' in the room. and then we'll only
be safe if we claim our world and install an alternative management.
thanks b, for the excellent perspective on the ceaseless grind the us has put the peninsula
under over the past six decades. i never noticed their lockstep of stress and torture with the
agricultural cycle either. hades and persephone all over again. i guess it never stops.
Thanks much for the complement. There are two main credible reporters on the Korean War that
I use: IF Stone's The Hidden History of the Korean War was published in 1952 and was excellent
for its timely veracity; Bruce Cumings, recently History Chair at University of Chicago, has written
extensively on Korea, and his two volume The Origins of the Korean War is the most extensive
examination of the conflict. In 2010, he published a very abridged version that looks serviceable,
easier to find and much less expensive. This links to a review of Stone's book in doc format,
www.ais.org/~jrh/Hidden_History_of_Korean_War.doc Cumins also co-authored Inventing the Axis
of Evil: The Truth about North Korea, Iran, and Syria which is short and very readable. Cumins
has also examined and written about the relationship between War and Television within
the USA. And here's a website containing many of IF Stone's writings,
http://www.ifstone.org/index.php
I am amazed by the depth of the comments on Trump's military threats against North Korea (trolls
excepted). I would hope that Trump is just playing Teddy Roosevelt who "carried the big stick"
using the white fleet to intimidate Japan: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h942.html
The US has positioned two cruise missile carrying destroyers within 300 miles of the North
Korean nuclear test site awaiting the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group including
the WC-135 "nuclear sniffer" aircraft.
U.S. Air Force has also just staged and epic Elephant Walk at Kadena Air Base Japan comprised
of HH-60 Pave Hawks, F-15 Eagles, E-3 Sentries and KC-135 Stratotankers as a show of force (see
Superstation95 for photos).
In addition to the thermobaric bomb demonstration in Afghanistan, the US just tested the upgraded
B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb (just linked by Anon1)
Trump's "Big Stick" approach has led to mass movements of:
(1) China moved 200,000 troops on the border of North Korea;
(2) Evacuation of about 600,000civilians from Pyongyang;
(3) Plans by Japan's National Security Council on how to evacuate its nearly 60,000 citizens
from South Korea;
(4) Lots of flights out of South Korea.
There are reports that China has sent its submarines sent out to sea (setting on the bottom?)
and is likely making additional preparations without fanfare.
North Korea has recently stated that if an attack is perceived a nuclear war will occur. I
would expect that the first strike would be an airburst meant to wipe out all electronics not
protected by Faraday cages, including unhardened military communications systems.
On the US West coast it would be wise to stock up on iodine tablets as attacks on nuclear reactors
and other nuclear facilities will release iodine 131 from fuel rods as well as other biologically
hazardous radionuclides including strontium-90, cesium-137, and uranium-234.
It may be the Make America Great Again is actually represents the Jewish word for combat (MAGA).
Such an approach was warned against by General Smedley Butler in his critical essay "War is a
Racket". https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
As a side note the South Korean elections are coming up soon. Does anyone have a point of view?
@104 The hedge fund guys are only good if they make the right bets. What they depend on is inside
information, which companies are in trouble, which country is going to get whacked etc. But they
don't always get it right. And their thinking is mostly short term.
'Alternative management' would be nice. Maybe a race of benevolent aliens could take over.
I feel I should simply repeat what I said yesterday on this site. It still seems rather relevant:
This is where this is going, I would guess:
US Airstrike on North Korea Risks Leading to '5-6 Chernobyl-Type Disasters'
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704131052612166-us-north-korea-chernobyl/
/~~~~~~~~~~ "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could
be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type
disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a
place unsuitable for life," he explained.
\~~~~~~~~~~
But that's not all we're going to get:
/~~~~~~~~~~
The Pentagon "cannot but take into account that in case of an airstrike against North Korea, US-made
Tomahawks will fly toward the territory of Russia and China. This is a more dangerous scenario
than the show of force in Syria," he said. "Russia will not be able to wait for US missiles to
accidentally land on its territory. Moscow will be forced to shoot down the missiles while they
are in North Korean airspace."
\~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, tens of millions of South Koreans perish, with a few becoming radionuclide refugees.
Good job, eh?
@ blues
I would guess that SK, Japan, Australia, are all viewed simply as forward military bases by the
US, that can be abandoned if required.
@ jfl
I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars.
Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed.
Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all
of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country,
they were willing to gamble everything to have it all.
This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and
now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the
US become more threatening.
So for me that needs to be matched/reconciled to Outraged comments on pre-positioning, indicators
ect.
TRUMP READY TO REMOVE CRAZED NORTH KOREAN KILLER [GLOBE as observed in my supermarket yesterday,
front page reported on-line]
IN a gutsy move to save the world from global disaster, courageous President Donald Trump
has drawn up a ruthless, top-secret plan to kill North Korean warmonger Kim Jong Un before he
can push the button that would unleash nuclear holocaust!
D.C. insiders tell GLOBE the iron-willed president is fed up with roly-poly Kim's blustery
bull and is determined to squash the pint-sized dictator, who recently launched four intercontinental
ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan!
"Trump has put the elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in Trump has put the
elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in South Korea on standby and ordered Tomahawk
missiles and nuclear weapons to the North Korean border!" a White House insider tells GLOBE.
Get all the details and the latest information on the White House's latest moves against the
tyrannical North Korean dictator in this week's issue of GLOBE.
====
Piotr: I understand how "top-secrets" can make it to our intrepid GLOBE reporters. But how
did they determined who is "iron-willed" and who is "rolly-polly". E.g. it seems to me that Mr.
Trump and Mr. Kim have similar BMI. Or how both leaders exhibited iron will firing employees.
i agree. no matter what happens, it won't be good ... until the Mother Of All Bubbles has burst.
and then it might be but a brief respite indeed if we don't take advantage of the lull in 'play'
to 'decapitate' our own 'leadership'. it's our sheer, mere 300 million+ souls (600 million+ soles?)
to their 535 caputs ... think we have a chance?
Apologies if this has already been mentioned - but if the USA were to unilaterally launch strikes
on North Korea could Russia itself intervene and launch missiles against the ships/fleet at fault
- ie - against those who have abrogated their responsibilities to international peace and security?
The aggressor nation.
Could Russia sink the ships with the USS Carl Vinson in the name of maintaining international
peace and security??
What side of Korea is the Carl Vinson and is it closer to the coastline of Russia or Syria?
According to Jim Stone NK has a very formidable 50+ submarine fleet. He also said these subs
are of NK manufacture based on their upgrades to Russian 1990's designs. They are nowhere to be
seen at the moment and as they run on batteries when still, there is no easy way to detect them
if they are on the ocean floor.
Many are nuclear, have on average 100 mile range and the largest one could travel to and hit
the West Coast. So if the Trump armada attacks they may quickly find themselves on the bottom
of the South China Sea. And as for a war with China, IMO there is no way the US can win conventionally
IMO. And if it looks to go to nuclear, Russia will regretfully reduce us to ash. It appears Trump
has turned over management of the military to the generals. I have the same sense of pending disaster
that I would have if I, on rounding a corner bumped into 1000 Daleks and with not a Doctor in
sight.
In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly
lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with
possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation.
An even more critical issue is that a lack of power would shutoff cooling water to the spent
nuclear fuel storage ponds. This would result in the water boiling off and
"Once the fuel is uncovered, it could become hot enough to cause the metal cladding encasing
the uranium fuel to rupture and catch fire, which in turn could further heat up the fuel until
it suffers damage. Such an event could release large amounts of radioactive substances, such as
cesium-137, into the environment."
It is important to remember that there is more spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel rods than in
the reactors. There is a DOE computer program for calculating the radionuclide composition of
the fuel vs storage time (Origin code). but I cannot find it on the internet. The release of these
daughter products and the long term dispersal onto the land would turn Korea into a dead zone
for hundreds of years.
This is very disturbing but I still believe it is show and that trump is just using theater to
intimidate N Korea and actually China to control N Korea.
i fully expect that China will give him a bogus way of looking tough that will achieve nothing
and do little to n Korea. The problem is what happens if n Korea and China call his bluff and
give him no way to look tuff.
Is it possible this is a distraction for further actions in Syria?
Maybe connected.....maybe not? With the election of Trump....word gets out that North Korea is
very interested in talks with the incoming administration....and then what happens: Kim Jong-un's
brother dies in a spectacularly suspicious fashion. Now that Park has been impeached.......and
her likely successor looks to be someone open to talks with North Korea, the US is suddenly on
the brink of war with the DPRK. Coincidence...neocon serendipity? Inquiring minds wanna know!
@29 - This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming
war.Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:49:02 PM | 29
ridiculous idea to even contend with. scared of what? the very first place for he n.korean nukes
will be US army basesin japan, even before s korea.
everyone knows the so called armada is a bluff here in asia, on other note, it shows USA doesn't
provide security to the freedom of navigation that it keeps on pushing onto others. it does the
opposite, it shows all the nations what freedom of navigation really means ..... to push for war
instead of protecting trade, of which almost all the trade is coming from china anyways.
it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries
in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa.
if trump does do something ridiculous, there won't be much of US/japan influence left in asia
as china/russia will be forced to respond, and respond it will not like the fake wars washington
is content with nowadays. trump obviously wants to change the tune of the conflicts....... but
sending an armada into enemy territory while espousing support from nato..... (pacific nato?)
puts so much fear into any nation here, knowing there is no petroleum logistics here for the war
lovers.
where u going to buy oil from Hong kong? singapore? japan? russia?
@127 The simple answer is much like Obama, Trump is turning to bumbling around the international
stage now that his domestic Presidency is finished. Between the Freedom Caucus and extinction
of the Democrats who have been reliable crossover votes, there isn't a working majority in Washington.
The key event wasn't the chemical weapon false flag or Rachel Maddow's latest Glenn Beck screed
but the failure to repeal ACA and the recognition the Republicans don't have a plan to go or much
of anything. The budget will be up in a few months, and he still has the same problem he has ACA:
Demcorats who cant provide cover and the Freedom Caucus types.
"Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies
are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply
grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy"
trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track.
One other jewel of US propaganda is why US is there, Keeping peace between NK and SK? Not at all
US is there to keep peace between both Koreas and Japan and US stake imperial claim against China.
Numerous cases of Japanese even minute encroachments on territorial waters of whole Korea were
met by SK and NK alike with joint condemnation recalling ambassadors and even small shooting war
and that including sharp conflict between both Koreans and Japan over so called disputed islands
and waters.
In fact a claim that US role there is stabilizing the situation cannot be entirely dismissed
however the issue is that it is the US THAT CAUSED THIS INSTABILITY IN THE FIRST PLACE pushing
regional divisions what amounts to precluding possibility to really end WWII among enemies resolve
issues that still remind unresolved like Korea and move on with acknowledgment of reality of Chinese
economic and political leadership which would be just return to historical situation just two
centuries ago with modern solutions for coexistence.
But that would spell the end of globalist project under US imperial umbrella, a prospective
that is strongly opposed on all sides for diametrically different reasons.
Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan
quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today.
Russia/USSR won WWII in Vietnam, and Vietnam is now an independent sovereign country. US won
WWII in Germany and Germany is still an occupied country. Japan has never been disputed and remains
a US occupied country. Korea has never been settled and WWII is still ongoing.
If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism
sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it
immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot.
so mark pence is in sk with the troops 'observing easter prayer', what fucking hypocrites , 'god's
army' on the way to another killing spree. --
i wonder if pence's son is with the grunts ? mao sent his son together with the troops to help
nk beat back the murkkans, hundreds of thousands never went home, including mao's son.
but nuthin about the chinese sacrifice was mentioned in the nk war memorial hall, its all about
the 'great leader'.
during the sino/soviet split, nk had no hesitation ditching beijing for the more powerful ussr.
by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful unitedsnake...if
only washington would accept him.
wouldnt be surprised if kim is eventually 'cowed' by trump's armada and submit to washington
wish.
then trump would brag 'didnt i tell you all the past prez are pussies, it takes a real man
to get things done'
@ outraged.
What would we see for a naval and to a lesser extent air war to blockade China? No ground war
component with the massive logistic tail that requires. Obama's pivot on China entailed moving
60% of US naval assets to Asia pacific region.
Where are US subs located? Where are US missile ships located. What is classified in the way
of US naval asset positioning and not available to the public?
Carriers are smoke and mirrors. A bygone era.
From what I can make of it, Carter pre-positioned India as a US asset in 2016.
it may be that b has hit the nail on the head again ...
"As a first step, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear
and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea
(ROK) military exercises," Wang told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual session
of the National People's Congress.
... what happens is that tee-rump unveils essentially this plan at the 'last minute' and takes
credit for it, having exercised us all and directed the attention to his spotlight on the yellow
sea.
i hope that's what happens. we're stuck with this clown for four more years. he has no talent
of his own, unless you call this kind of 'performance' talent ... and in fact he seems to have
claimed it ... he may be an a**hole but he's the world's biggest a**hole! ... at least we might
all live through it, ruled by a 70 year-old enfant terrible. tee-rump will play dummy and putin
and xi can alternate as ventriloquists ... smiling and holding the dummy up to take the bows.
Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 15, 2017 1:21:00 AM |
134
@145: I don't really consider folks here'bouts as peasants. There are trolls and sock puppets.
B and the commentators here (you and jfl are high on the list!) comprise a collection of 'reality
lenses' that I find useful.
RE: My initial response to jfl, the 20% I envision as human shields might be splittable, but
you're only going to flake off a few %. Also, ignorance/apathy/fear (or incapacity for some other
reason) on 'our side' brings the numbers way down. Add to that attrition from whatever course
of action Empire attempts, and you have even fewer. Since we seem to be dealing with the 'upset-the-table'
kind of losers, I'm sure they'll do something spectacular as a coda.
Anyway, currently reading "The Shining", "Conquest of the Useless", "Roughing It", "Moby Dick".
Just finished Gregory Benford's "Galactic Center" series...that was gripping and depressing for
6 long volumes.
Vice President Pence is scheduled to visit Seoul on Sunday, during his first Asian trip. The
timing of his visit, after the Day of the Sun, might indicate the US does not plan any pre-emptive
strike against North Korea on the Day of the Sun However, while Pence is ostensibly going to South
Korea to talk with the government there about North Korea's nuclear development, the White House
has also said it has contingency plans for the VP's visit, should North Korea carry out another
nuclear test, indicating the possibility of a sudden shift to a war footing if Kim goes ahead
with his apparent plans.
\~~~~~~~~~~
@146 denk, 'by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful
unitedsnake...'
but that's a plan made looking in the rearview mirror ... isn't it? the future is china's.
the very recent past is the 'legacy' of the us, burnt-out shooting star. sacrificed to the greed
of its ruling class. in this life, at any rate.
any opportunist worth his wages would go with china at this point in the game. and isn't kim
really just the korean version of trump?
an apprentice working for the apparat that really runs the country as their frontman, to bound
about on stage and keep the world's attention on korea?
151
Ignorance/apathy covers the middle 75% or so. A US manual on special forces hybrid/covert warfare
covers that well. Even has a pie chart. Too many home brews at the moment to dig up the link,
compounded by the fact that it is nearly time for my nana nap.
If Kim does want to 'provoke' the Americans and test a missile or nuke surely he's most likely
to do it a bit later than people think - ie - like Tuesday night Korean time - perhaps just before
US markets open for Tuesday after the holidays. Or are they open on Monday? If they are, perhaps
9-10pm Monday night Korean time???
Try and cause a 'panicked' market crash before Trump can react? Ensuring he will react against
the backdrop of a market crash should he choose to react.
i re-read moby dick myself a couple of years ago. found a
whale
chart to go along with it, which helped bring the voyage to life ... back in the day ... when
i was a kid there were always films from africa on tv, millions of gazelles and wildebeasts. i
imagine they're all gone now, as are the buffalo, as go the whales.
i think that, just as the man himself has turned on a dime when confronted with 'reality',
so too will we and many of our usian brothers and sisters, many his followers, once we reach the
point of personal betrayal required to open our eyes to our real enemies, to forget the scripted
'enemies' our real enemies had taught us to love to hate. but i've never been through a real meltdown
and revolution before, so i don't know. that looks to me the way things are headed though. deplored
by all sides, yet thought to be well under control, yet we all have our own peculiar 'red lines',
and are being pushed, relentlessly toward them. we are many and growing more numerous; they are
few and getting fewer, by their own design.
The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century.
Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover
America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street
and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars
would be needed.
The main change has been the form of government envisioned for the future. This has changed
from Communism to Fascism. Many supporters of fascism here in the 1930's including FDR. After
WWII many of the fascist bankers and industrialists in Germany and Japan got off light and were
reintegrated into the global economy where they trained up the next generation of fascists. They
joined forces with those likeminded folks in the US and Brits by working together in BIS, various
international agencies and groups like the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals to develop strategies
to acccomplish their goals in the short and long terms
...
After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would
it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell
& good time vassals) ... any ?
Posted by: Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 4:03:27 PM | 78
That's a really good question. Imo, Western propaganda often seems to have an influence on
the actions and statements of AmeriKKKa's fake enemies. There are two (maybe more?) ways of looking
at this.
1. The fake enemies really are worried about public opinion in the West.
2. They're not worried, but deem it sensible to pretend that they are, because anything they can
do to encourage AmeriKKKa to believe more of its own bullshit should lead to an escalation to
the point where it crosses the line dividing the sublime from the ridiculous - which is what seems
to have happened this year.
we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US
would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean
army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars
and missiles.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/
Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff
.....But what would the result of such a strike be?
For one thing, almost certainly it would mean the contamination of part or even much of the
country in North Korea with nuclear fallout and radiation. For another it - given the long history
of US "precision" targeting going terribly wrong - it would mean much death and destruction for
the long-suffering North Korean people.
It would also mean chaos in a country that for nearly three-quarters of a century has been
ruled by one absolute tyrant or another, in which there is simply no organized system of governance
at lower levels to handle anything, from delivery of health services to distribution of food.
If you think the chaos that followed the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist
leadership of Iraq was bad, or that the chaos of the US overthrow of Gaddafy in Libya was bad,
you ain't seen nothing yet if North Korea's leader gets offed in a US strike.
In theory, China, South Korea or Japan could step in with troops, money and civilian personnel
to help reestablish some kind of order and peace, while preventing the rise of yet another tyrannical
government, but none of that is likely. The Chinese would probably not want to take it on, the
Japanese are viewed negatively as a former colonial power, and South Korea may not want the financial
burden of rescuing the North, which would be staggering.
Meanwhile, while the US could relatively easily, and at minimal cost, "take out" North Korea's
missiles, nukes and leadership, especially in the case of the Trump administration, there is absolutely
no interest in taking on the costs of occupying and subsidizing the rebuilding North Korea following
such an ill-conceived attack......
A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during
the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north
Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction
I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent).
ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer
you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because
they ran out of other targets in some way).
Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks.
Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy
with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force.
Crazy world. And most people can't see past it at a level more deep than "crazy dictator with
a bad haircut."
The 'mother of all bombs' is big, deadly – and won't lead to peace Medea Benjamin
"I'm really very good at war. I love war, in a certain way," bragged candidate Donald Trump at
a campaign rally in Iowa. This is the same Donald Trump who avoided the Vietnam draft by claiming
a bone spur in his foot, a medical problem that never kept him off the tennis courts or golf courses,
and miraculously healed on its own.
But with the escalation of US military involvement in Syria, the record number of drone attacks
in Yemen, more US troops being sent to the Middle East and, now, the dropping of a massive bomb
in Afghanistan, it looks like Trump may indeed love war. Or at least, love "playing" war.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineff
I've also heard the total death toll was between 1/10 and 1/5 of the total population.
Of the TOTAL population. Imagine knowing no one could name a person not being touched by the
violence. Having total families decimated. Breeds a ton of hatred and understandably so. We need
to get that its not just as one sided as having everyone "brainwashed" without access to outside
culture. Its an insane outlook.
Solo sorry for the triple post, also needed to say that because everyone hates this crazy dictator
people never take the anti war position. Its just we should charge in with our guns - or giant
missiles - blazing hooorahh.
No one sees the death and destruction that will take place. The artillery alone not even nukes,
would smash Seoul. They can't see beyond the black and white of 'allow dictator nukes' and 'kill
him.' There's never room for diplomacy here - its just as bad as 'negotiating with terrorists.'
What a crock of shit. And trumps played his hand badly cause he has no wiggle room. Makes Syrian
strike looks like a joke. So much for being friendly with China. How about a piece of delicious
cake as consolation?
LOVE B's take on the economics of nuclear might is. Crazy I never heard of those documents. Doesn't
help that the North has been straved of food - and more importantly OIL. Means a lot of money
when you get down to brass taxes. Worst of all, north Korea NEEDS subsistence farming and its
so mountainous you need oil and diesel to blow these hilly as hell fields. When you strave them
of oil, you strave them of food again in a way. Without subsistence farming they strave for the
most part. And people think that drives people AWAY from a demagogic/personality cult type figure.
It only endears them more. It, in a way, is proving the dictator right... That the US IS OUT TO
GET US (and it is) and THE US IS STARVING YOU NOT ME (also true).
@all - done some housecleaning here for Day of the Sun - Juche 105 (.i.e.today)
---
The parade in North Korea yesterday was quite a show. Lots of new TEL (Transport-Erector-Launch
Vehicles) for big intercontinental missiles. We don't know if real missiles were inside but NoKo
likes to show new stuff off and only field it a year or two later.
Even though Pyongyang withheld from testing this weekend amid rumors of possible retaliation
by the United States, North Korea is still looking to improve its missile know-how. Moreover,
the long-dreaded ICBM flight test also might not be too far off now. Given the ever-growing
number of TELs - both wheeled and tracked - North Korea may soon field nuclear forces amply
large that a conventional U.S.-South Korea first strike may find it impossible to fully disarm
Pyongyang of a nuclear retaliatory capability. That would give the North Korean regime what
it's always sought with its nuclear and ballistic missile program: an absolute guarantee against
coercive removal.
smoothie X2 82
Ah -- what lies beneath the waves? . I remember in the early 1970's comments in the Western press
that China through budget constraints was putting its 'eggs' into the submarine basket - cost
effectiveness - . The article stressed that Chinese strategists deliberately eschewed using non-Chinese
designs and 'fast track' technology so as to develop submarine systems that would have unique
, secret capabilities honed to Chinese conditions . Perhaps of all weaponary the Chinese sub-mariners
may have some surprises in store . Let's hope we never have to find out --
Dear b and community. I read all of your posts on this topic with interest.
The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest
that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that
this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential
election in the South.
For the past two presidential terms, the South has had Lee Myung-Bak and Park Geun-Hye both
of whom took a hardline against North Korea and have killed the Sunshine Policy of their predecessors
(Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun). As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal
circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite
to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be
in South Korea.
The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will
be front and centre in the campaign.
Just a thought. Thanks for everyone's contributions. This is a really good place to gain insight.
Extremely interesting take. Plus the anti THAAD movement is growing. Incidents between American
soldiers in South Korean bases and the locals have been growing and that doesn't help. Remember
that Osprey crash a couple months back?
oneoffposter@154 - Thanks for that, oneoffposter. Korea would (supposedly) have been re-unified
in the late 90's if it wasn't for US and Japanese efforts to prevent that from happening. I don't
have specifics to back that up, but that 'feels' about right with regards to US actions over the
years.
South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays
a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing
or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans
of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM.
Likewise, the US does everything possible to antagonize North Korean leaders and rattle their
cage, making them seem even more insane than they usually are. Resulting, of course, in the South
Koreans eagerly approving an eternal US presence for protection and the North Korean leaders sliding
further into a black hole of indignation and rage. We didn't create the psychopaths in North Korea,
but we're sure good at keeping them in power. They're useful to us.
I'll be watching the elections in the South with much interest now.
i wonder how much we really know about the koreans. it's hard for me to imagine that the korean
people hate and fear each other. korea is not a settler country, like us five eyes, where the
possibility of setting one group against another is so conveniently ready to hand to the oppressors.
can either set of koreans hate and fear one of their governments more than the other? i think,
as someone else pointed out above, the worst of the terror after the war was undertaken by korean
compradors of the japanese, at american instigation. i remember reading about a program to 'allow'
southerners to cross the border for family reunions. i think it was terrifically popular.
who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew
that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ...
the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the
us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash.
treating peoples like objects, we'll be objects of hate ourselves, finally. already are in
many quarters, of course. but in far fewer than we 'merit'. i don't see how that cannot change
now that we have embraced 'the dark side', as cheney put it, and now the unabashed evil-clown/wicked-witch
with trump/clinton in the 2016 coin toss.
now with mercenaries, cruise missiles, drones, chemical weapons, and none of our own skin in
the game ourselves any longer, we really do fit the description of creatures from another planet
to our victims. the image of hg wells' aliens in tripods sticks in my mind. that must be just
what americans - not even in - drones and cruise missiles must seem to our victims.
atonement. at-one-ment a friend of mine used to say. with the human race. how long will that
take for america and americans, once 'the pride of man' is broken in the dust again.
Well, it's 19:02m in Korea, on the 15th and no nuke blast. President Loon (my apology to the bird)
will have to pack up his toys and go home.
I wonder how much that hubris cost the US?
From German experience this would not work. Every South Korean knows that war with the North
was/would be total desaster.
It is also clear that North Korea will only open up if they feel safe. The break down of communist
systems is over, there is no use to wait for that.
German Social Democrats had their best election results when promoting a "change by approach"
policy.
The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally
South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already
changed. But the US managed to create a
security
conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for
North Korea.
Thanks for posting the figures. I don't know what the present day figures are like (your source
seems to be posting figures for 2015).
Since then, Park Geun-Hye gave the go ahead for THAAD to be installed overriding the objections
of the local people. People more informed than I question (to put it mildly) the benefit this
gives to South Korea. However, it has already had an impact on the South's economic relationship
with China (and I guess, the political relationship too), showing just how important the question
of who holds power in South Korea really is.
Posters here often refer to the US/NATO attempt to split the Russia/China axis. It seems to
me that this KOR/CHINA relationship also would not be welcomed.
The ideas and slow-build towards reunification as evidenced by Kim Dae-Jung & Roh Moo-Hyun
(e.g. Sunshine policy and the Truth commissions) were (in my opinion) logical steps to be taken
towards first reducing the tensions on the peninsula leading perhaps to reunification talks (you
never know). It is impossible to know now where they would have led, but they have been thoroughly
discredited at this point and it is difficult to see how they could be restarted.
SEOUL, April 6 (Xinhua) -- South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday
filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional.
Residents from Seongju county and Gimcheon city in southeast South Korea and peace activists
gathered outside the constitutional court in central Seoul, holding a press conference before
submitting the constitutional appeal.
According to the petition document, the residents and activists said the THAAD deployment
violated many of the constitution clauses while failing to follow any appropriate procedures.
Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one
THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement,
Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about
the THAAD installation.
Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se visited a department store when the THAAD deployment decision
was announced, indicating no advance discussions between ministers of defense and foreign affairs
and the presidential office.
The petitioners said the decision-making process on THAAD was rough and ready as there was
no approval in the cabinet meeting, and that it was unilaterally determined by the national
security council of the presidential office.
"The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for
dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society,
an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers.
So much provocation, vilification and preparation of the public...for nothing.
The Neocons had really hoped that NK would react in some spectacularly 'menacing' way on its
national holiday...but no, just a parade with some huge phal...er, missiles. Sad.
It doesn't really matter *who* starts an aggression, but somebody at some point would surely
lose his nerves, no? And NK would make for such a good villain, reminding SK and Japan of how
dearly they need all that 'protection'.
Let's see where the next act will play out. Ukraine once again, or Libya?
(on that MOAB - looks like a strong message that 'we' are not about to give Afghanistan up,
but rather willing to up the ante...)
Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on
the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen'
(from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid!
The THAAD deployment places SK (even more) firmly in the cross-hairs of China's missiles. So
now, at least they have some reason to fear it and scramble for 'protection'...mission accomplished!
(President Park didn't approve of this...which is why she was removed.)
Is there a way out of this? Not really. The US running out of money, maybe.
b
I read the nj.gov link and it does not tend to match your narrative in that paragraph although
I agree that official narratives tend to twist the truth. I cannot see the Soviet motives towards
Korea as anymore altruistic than Japan's especially in that time period. The Soviets are no more
saints in the WWII period than the US.
I do agree that US maneuvers close to the borders of "opponents" whether Russia or NK are antagonistic
and unnecessary. And sometimes stupid action takes place after them like we saw in Georgia 2008.
Putin shook a finger at Bush and rightly so. If Mr. "Art of the Deal" really were a deal maker
he would meet at Panmunjon with the leaders of NK, SK, Russia, and China and sign an final official
end to the Korean war and set the framework for demilitarization of the peninsula and trade/other
deals.
For nothing? The american ship have pretty much just arrived, within next 4 weeks we probably
will see something happen by the US. He simply cant back now.
According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster
the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together.
This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders
mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of
the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook.
I have friends who use Facebook, I don't, who constantly say the oddest, incorrect things to
me that could only have been fomented there.
Yes, when the arm twisting doesn't suffice they remove you, that's part of what the NSA and
CIA do. Smear, blackmail and gather corruption evidence, whether real, perceived or planted to
keep US puppets in line.
yes, somebody's link had the china-south korea trade at 300 billion, whereas the numbers in
the link i found were at ~220 billion. but the the china-south korea trade at 220 billion was
just about twice the us-south korea trade in that period. i imagine it ratio was higher, if anything,
up until thaad.
@162, sb,
maybe the trade value lost due to the thaad deal will make everyone 'notice' its illegality
... now that they're starting to bleed. money speaks louder than the law, in most countries these
days.
@167 curtis
they'd set the peninsula on fire if they thought it would bring them closer to world domination.
the us ruling class cares not a whit for humans of any 'brand', americans included. certainly
not for koreans, north or south.
@170 gravatomic
i have no proof but that's exactly the thought that ran through my head when park went down
: she wasn't 'on board' the thaad train. i suppose it was the memory of the pictures with xi ...
and of the vile cia's past actions, all over the world.
I saw your response earlier about how no writer can represent both sides equally, and I agree.
I still lurk here and find no fault with your insights 99% of the time. You know perfectly well
that in most situations, I am a staunch non-interventionist. I simply disagree (strongly) on this
particular issue. Anyway, I apologize for sounding so hostile--especially at you. This situation
just has my nerves pretty frayed right now.
I don't want to be dragged into a giant tu quoque match, so I won't respond to much
more here, except to address George Smiley @155, above. I'm not sure where you read that
the anti-THAAD movement is "growing," but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case from here
on the ground. I am about 20 minutes from Seongju, and have spoken to many of the anti-THAAD people
about their concerns. There's very, very little going on there politically; Seongju is a very
poor area which is economically dependent on a particular melon crop they are famous for. Most
of the anti-THAAD demonstrators were local farmers who had gotten the idea that the EM radiation
coming from the THAAD radar would hurt their crops. In the wake of China's economic retaliation
against THAAD, however, a good many of the locals have reversed their opinion and now support
it. When the deployment was first announced, there was a lot of buzz about it (nobody wanted it
here in their backyard,) but now when the subject is brought up at all (increasingly rarely,)
it's usually digging in their heels about how China deserves it for kicking out their K-pop stars
and shutting down the Lotteria fast food restaurants unfairly. Public opinion might change again
if Moon Jae-in declares a firm position about it instead of waffling back and forth, but at this
moment it's only a small but vocal minority that are opposed to it.
@158 The US armada will be off to Pattaya soon for some well deserved R&R.
The BBC coverage is worth a watch BTW for those who like to read between the lines. Lots of
spin of course but the commentator does admit at one point that NK needs its nukes to avoid going
the way of Iraq and Libya.
was there ever an 'official' announcement of a nuclear test planned for saturday? or was it
just an 'expectation' ... if the latter, maybe the cia fostered it, knowing it wasn't going to
happen, so they could thwack tee-rump's rump and have him take a 'victory lap' when it didn't?
if they're serious about nukes ... and they should be as long as the us has them in its sights
... the north koreans have got to test more at some point.
it's really hard for me to imagine any good excuse for a us battle group to be between china
and korea in the yellow sea without an invitation. what would the us position be if a chinese
- not to mention a russian - battle group showed up in the caribbean, or hudson's bay, concerned
about the rogue american state and it's mad leader ?
here's the oft derided 'unelected' ccp partial plan for 2017,
'to lift another 10-20m people outta poverty and step up the anti corruption battle'.
thats in addition to the 70m already bailed out , cited by UN as a text book case of social development.
whats the vaunted 'elected' leaders of murkka plan for 2017,
to do 'syria, nk, iran, china, russia.... '?
350 ships for the 'depleted' USN ?
'star war' redux ?
by the guy who got 'elected' on his 'anti deep state' and 'populist' platform --
lots of people say mdm park is a murkkan stooge and she's been removed by people power.
well like i say many times before, park is a very reluctant 'stooge',
first off she is a known sinophile who's well versed in chinese culture,
she had been dragging her feet over the thaad installation for years and china is sk's largest
market.
hence antagonising china must be the last thing on her mind.
anyone of the above is enough reason for a regime change.
the last straw was most likely when she defied washington's dictat and join putin in china's ww2
memorial ceremony in 2015.
mind you, she's the only leader from the murkkan camp with 'cojones'to attend. [1]
i guess her fate was sealed from that moment.
so is her ouster yet another color rev masqueraded as 'people power',like the 'arab spring'
etc ?
Yes you are of course right, as usual when US does it themselves, it is apparently the fault
of the other party (North Korea) according to the useless MSM in the west.
There are some rumours that NK will test its nuclear tech. again soon and then US will strike.
China is getting nervous somehow, apparently dont understand what they effectively have giving
a green light to:
China : "We call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether
in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/15/nkor-a15.html
The chinese cant even condemn the foreign aggressor anymore.
Thank you very much for this important and critical posting, b. I wish for you and all who come
here a joyful and rich Springtime holy season to assuage our fears and give us hope for the future.
Sure would be nice to find the original of the comments attributed to MacArthur. I've looked at
the references in "Napalm: an American biography" by Robert M. Neer but can't find any original
sources online. The footnote for this passage is jumbled, citing seven sources for this passage.
I did find that at the time MacArthur was advocating far more attacks in Korea, not
less, which makes such comments suspect. Why would someone who was losing their job, and likely
their career, due to their stance advocating more military action make such comments?
The first step to solving the North Korean problem is removing U.S. troops from the middle
of it.
By Doug Bandow
April 13, 2017
It's Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose
Asia contains the world's two most populous nations, the country with the largest Muslim population,
the two largest economies after America, and the next superpower and peer competitor to the United
States. But when U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the continent recently, small,
impoverished North Korea nearly monopolized his attention.
Why is the United States, which dominates the globe militarily, politically, and economically,
fixated on this poor, isolated, and distant nation? Because America has gotten entangled where
it does not belong.
Washington has been deeply involved in the Korean Peninsula since the end of World War II.
Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington's
loss being the Soviet Union's gain. Having invested some 37,000 lives to save South Korea during
the Korean War, America's credibility was also at stake. And with the "loss" of China to communism
fresh on Americans' minds, nobody was willing to see another Asian nation go red.
But that world disappeared long ago.
The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness,
and America's Korea commitment its purpose.
The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness,
and America's Korea commitment its purpose. While there is much to criticize in the approach of
Donald Trump's administration to the rest of the world, the president correctly sees the need
for a foreign policy that more effectively protects America's interests. A good place to start
shifting course is the region home to the world's newest and least responsible nuclear power.
The Koreas are no longer a proxy battleground between superpowers. There was a time when U.S.
withdrawal from a confrontation with a Soviet ally in Asia would have, analysts believed, signaled
weakness a continent away in Europe. But the Soviets are long gone and the cause for American
commitment with them. An inter-Korean war would be tragic and the body count enormous, but absent
American involvement the fighting would largely be confined to the peninsula. The continued presence
of U.S. forces, by contrast, virtually guarantees the spread of conflict.
South Korea's defense no longer requires Washington's presence. The South's economy began racing
past its northern antagonist during the 1960s. Democracy arrived in the late 1980s. By the 1990s,
when mass starvation stalked Pyongyang as Seoul's economy boomed, the gap between the two Koreas
was already huge and growing. The South's military potential is correspondingly great though as
yet unrealized - in part because dependence on the U.S. presence has affected strategic choices.
Yet America's military presence has remained sacrosanct. Jimmy Carter's plan to bring home
U.S. troops was opposed even by his own appointees. Ronald Reagan pushed a more muscular confrontation
with the Soviet Union and other communist states. With the end of the Cold War, his successors
expanded alliance commitments, particularly in Europe, but also in Asia. Today, 28,500 troops
remain in South Korea, backed up by U.S. forces in Okinawa and other Asian-Pacific bases, and
highlighted by periodic decisions to overfly the North with bombers or send aircraft carriers
to nearby waters whenever Washington wants to demonstrate "resolve" to Pyongyang.
So why is America still there?
One argument, advanced by analyst Robert E. McCoy, is moral, "since it was American ignorance
that facilitated the division of the Korean Peninsula in the concluding days of World War II."
Some Koreans malign America for this division. But this is the wisdom of hindsight; in the chaotic
aftermath of global conflict, no U.S. official wanted to push the Soviets over a faraway peninsula.
The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their northern
neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did a very good
deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism and claims that it must forever police the peninsula.
More practical is the contention of analysts such as the Heritage Foundation's Bruce Klingner
that U.S. backing is "necessary to defend" the South. Yet, in contrast to 1950, there is no reason
the South cannot protect itself - if properly motivated to do so by the departure of U.S. conventional
forces. With a bigger economy, larger population, and significant technological edge, as well
as greater international support, Seoul could construct armed forces capable of deterring and
defeating the North. Doing so would be expensive and take serious effort, but so what? The South
Korean government's most important duty is to protect its people.
Taking on that responsibility also would force Seoul to treat Pyongyang more consistently.
The "Sunshine Policy" begun under former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung resulted in the transfer
of some $10 billion in cash and assistance to the North, even as the latter was developing missiles
and nuclear weapons. That approach was viable only because Washington provided a military backstop
(and if the new South Korean president, to be elected in May, revives the Sunshine Policy, as
some have suggested, there's no telling if the Trump administration would be so forgiving). The
South needs to bear both the costs and benefits of whatever approach it takes.
But even if South Korea couldn't defend itself, the argument would still fall short.
American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and
everywhere.
American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and
everywhere. The United States should go to war only when its most important interests are at stake.
South Korea's prosperity is not one of those vital interests, at least in security terms. A
renewed conflict confined to the two Koreas would be horrific, but the consequences for the United
States would be primarily humanitarian and economic, not security. The cost would be high but
fall primarily on the region. In contrast, direct U.S. involvement in another Korean War would
be much more expensive than the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, which have cost America thousands
of lives and trillions of dollars.
Of course, the North's possession of what we assume to be a growing and at some point deliverable
nuclear arsenal skews the peninsula's balance of power. However, this doesn't create a need for
a conventional American military presence on the peninsula. Washington could still guarantee massive
retaliation against any North Korean use of nuclear weapons, providing a deterrent against the
North's threats.
But it is worth contemplating whether it would be better to allow South Korea to construct
its own deterrent. In the late 1970s, South Korean President Park Chung-hee worried about Washington's
reliability and began work on a Korean bomb - only to stop under U.S. pressure. Since then, support
for reviving such work has periodically surfaced in South Korea. Encouraging such efforts might
actually be in the best interests of the United States, even if America has to maintain its nuclear
umbrella while the Korean bomb is developed.
Yes, encouraging nuclear proliferation is a risky path. But the United States would gain from
staying out of Northeast Asia's nuclear quarrels. China, fearful that Japan would join the nuclear
parade, might take tougher action against Pyongyang in an attempt to forestall Seoul's efforts.
The South could feel confident in its own defense, rather than remaining reliant upon U.S. willingness
to act.
A potpourri of broader claims is also made for maintaining U.S. forces. America's presence
supposedly constrains China, promotes regional stability, and deters an arms race. Let's consider
those claims in order. What sort of constraint is allegedly being posed to China? If the idea
is to coerce it into assuming responsibility for North Korea in the event of its collapse, Beijing
has shown no interest in attempting to swallow a Korean population likely to prove indigestible.
And if the calculation is rather that Washington can persuade South Korea to pressure China on
non-Korean matters, it's easy to predict the unfriendly response Seoul's Blue House would give
if invited by the White House to join it in warring against China to, say, save an independent
Taiwan, counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea - or, horror of horrors, defend Japan. Indeed,
absent U.S. protection, South Korea and Japan might feel greater pressure to finally settle historical
disputes so often misused by their nationalist politicians.
As for the idea that the U.S. presence deters a regional arms race, building weapons so others
don't have to is not the sort of charity America should engage in. Alliances can deter. But, as
dramatically demonstrated by World War I, they also can act as transmission belts of war. Moreover,
small nations often act irresponsibly - such as underinvesting in defense - when protected by
big powers.
The U.S. security presence in South Korea is an expensive and dangerous commitment that America
can no longer afford. Nor has it ever brought the United States much popularity in the country,
where U.S. soldiers are a constant irritant to nationalists. The South is no longer a poor nation
in need of protection from the specter of global communism but one more than capable of standing
on its own two feet.
@172 That makes me sad to hear. I appreciate a perspective that comes from first hand experience.
Its hard to get a proper outloom I feel outside of speaking with Koreans or even knowing the language.
Perhaps reading articles published by journalists opposed to THAAD has distorted my handle
of the situation. Sad the movement doesn't have more traction.
I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though.
Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial
retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I
get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views
of a few people I talk to in SK though.
What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack
on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression.
Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US
that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on?
I wanted to see the footnotes for that section, too, but I don't have a paper copy of the book.
However, based upon other readings of same testimony, I believe they were made during Congressional
testimony.
Perhaps the most important element to learn from the aggression waged against the peoples of
Korea, Indochina, and Iraq by the Outlaw US Empire is their Genocidal nature, and the additional
fact that in their post-war environment the killing and maiming continues unabated: All casualty
categories combined add up to well over 10 million and rising, far outperforming Hitler's genocide
of jews, gypsies and others.
Fully concur. And the Chinese are 'civilized' re public discourse, just because the are not
openly bellicose and full of aggressive rhetoric, does not mean they are push over pussies, exactly
the opposite behind the agreeable, diplomatic, ' face '. Talk softly, yet have a big stick
ready, just in case.
the foreign policy article extends tee-tump's 'pay for a native implementation of us policy'
a la nato to south korea ... and wouldn't it be a good idea if south korea had nukes, too. their
summary of us 'involvement' in korea post-wwii is shameful ...
The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their
northern neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did
a very good deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism ...
Depraved foreign policy recommendations from the us foreign policy establishment might as well
stay in their echo chamber, behind their paywall, as far as i'm concerned. news of the us foreign
policy establishment's depravity is dog bites man.
Why should that happen, if no side is willing to fire the first shot? There's been 'increased
tensions' many times before, missile and nuclear tests, naval drills...so far it's all just scaremongering
to me, and I don't quite see why it should be heating up *now*.
Other authors sympathetic to the plight of Korea are...
Gavan NcCormack
Gregory Elich
Desaix Anderson, who delivered an address on the US monstrous and systematic betrayal of NK to
the Nautilus Institute called Crisis In North Korea. Anderson was the CEO of the Korean Peninsula
Energy Development Organisation (KEDO).
I can no longer find the article on the www but one of the sleuths here may be able to track it
down.
Actually, all the problems started with the demands that Kim Jong Un made to USA --
First, he has demanded that USA give up all of its nuclear weapons, that USA stop all nuclear
research, that there should be a "regime change" in Washington, plus he had the chutzpah to send
assassins to USA to kill the POTUS !! So I'm not surprised at the reaction of D Trump to this
provocation ??
Wikileaks,
Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs
"We don't want
a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The
U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification.
The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the
suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises"
It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities.
Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly
reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees
'.
The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the
suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises".
It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities, just that they may.
It is not surprising that the U.S. turned down the offer since it did not guarantee that NK would
do anything.
"... As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole. ..."
"... On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm. ..."
"... One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." ..."
"... RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag. ..."
"... As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S." ..."
"... The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT. ..."
"... The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion. ..."
"... Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. ..."
"... The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. ..."
Mr. Trump had just ordered a Tomahawk strike against Syria's Shayrat air base, from which,
the United States said, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had launched the chemical weapons attack
that killed more than 80 and sickened hundreds.
As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right
wormhole.
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible
for the chemical strike. There was some "reportage" from sources like the conspiracy theorist
and radio host Alex Jones - best known for suggesting that the Sandy Hook school massacre was
staged - that the chemical attack was a "false flag" operation by terrorist rebel groups to goad
the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. But that was a view from the fringe.
Here in Russia, it was the dominant theme throughout the overwhelmingly state-controlled mainstream
media.
On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned
how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government
had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr.
Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm.
One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing
the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the
test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
That teed up Mr. Putin to suggest in nationally televised comments a couple of days later that
perhaps the attack was an intentional "provocation" by the rebels to goad the United States into
attacking Mr. Assad. RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated
Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag." The full Alex Jones was complete.
When Trump administration officials tried to counter Russia's "false narratives" by releasing
to reporters a declassified report detailing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles - and suggesting
to The Associated Press without proof that Russia knew of Mr. Assad's plans to use chemical weapons
in advance - the Russians had a ready answer borrowed from Mr. Trump himself.
As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald
Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S."
It was the best evidence I've seen of the folly of Mr. Trump's anti-press approach. You can't
spend more than a year attacking the credibility of the "dishonest media" and then expect to use
its journalism as support for your position during an international crisis - at least not with
any success.
While Mr. Trump and his supporters may think that undermining the news media serves their larger
interests, in this great information war it serves Mr. Putin's interests more. It means playing
on his turf, where he excels.
Integral to Mr. Putin's governing style has been a pliant press that makes his government the
main arbiter of truth.
While talking to the beaten but unbowed members of the real journalism community here, I heard
eerie hints of Trumpian proclamations in their war stories.
Take Mr. Trump's implicit threat to the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, during the
election campaign. In case you've forgotten, while calling The Post's coverage of him "horrible
and false," Mr. Trump warned that if he won the presidency Mr. Bezos's other business, Amazon,
would have "such problems." (The Post was undaunted, and the issue hasn't come up again.)
300 Words
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone
with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely
that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels,
rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything
to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons,
which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those
fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret.
Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April
17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi
Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr.
Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to
the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative
were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks
at a non-alt right site like
https://consortiumnews.com/
can easily confirm. And of course a highly
respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two
notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about
the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") -
but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
400 Words
@for-the-record
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that
it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the
not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing
to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still
had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer
the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical
weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April 17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad
had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the
effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were
only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a
non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And
of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published
not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence
Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and
amateurish") -- but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years
that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to
be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a
months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der
Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama
handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to
explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is
is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq
and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted
to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the
deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis
and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that
anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be
getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months
long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel
daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the
US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US
unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a
dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and
the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to
the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal
with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and
the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok
Nice short film. However, I cannot agree that people are in some kind of "oh
dear" mindset. On the contrary, they are easily instrumented into supporting
any random "something must be (militarily) done" call for action. Maybe a
direct consequence of post-Gulf War 1 triumphalism, when the US was great
again and apparently had left behind of trauma of Vietnam for good (that was
an actual talking point, believe it or not!). With the Soviet Union no more,
poised to rework the world in its own image, the US was!
It all went south
of course. We got the Yougoslavia catastrophe. Taking sides along with
Europeans acting according to reflexes harking back to 1914 and dropping
bombs didn't go all that well. When bombing started, Serbia was as
MSM-tarred as Syria is today. We got 10 years of suppressing Mr. Hussein.
Something was happening in Russia and maybe Chechnya and Georgia but no-one
was all too certain what or why. We got the surprise Hutu-on-Tutsi massacre
after which liberventionists were clamoring that "something should have been
done". There was some "cruise missile diplomacy" (i.e. Clinton bombs Sudan).
There were noises from Afghanistan with military commanders in particular
Ahmad Shah Massoud fighting someone called "Taliban" but nobody cared about
that. There was the marginally interesting Israel-Palestinian conflict with
neverending talks and the Israelis starting to behave like jerks after the
assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We got first "hard" terrorism hits: A
bombing in the WTC basement, a sarin gas attack in Tokyo, a diplomatic
mission in Africa and of course the OKC bombing. Well, I guess those years
of practically pre-Internet chaos were when "liberventionism" gelled.
The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still
hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in
humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American
people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one
knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in
Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war
profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries
to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion.
Also VIPS had
American intelligence contacts in the Middle East who said the Syrians hit
something that had chemicals in it. Everyone has their anonymous
intelligence sources. Assad isn't going anywhere there could have been a
proper investigation. The US media salivated at the bombing of Syria. The US
media is the American Empire's id. It tells it to do stupid stuff that is
going to get it killed. The US media loves to play nuclear chicken with
Russia. I suppose psychopaths need a lot of stimulation and what could be
more stimulating than a risk of nuclear war.
If the US media was doing its job it would not just be after Trump's
relationship with Russia. It would be after the whole American
establishments cozy relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They've
turned the US into a banana empire. Of course the US media is tied to
weapons producers and Israel gets a welfare check to buy American arms and
Saudi Arabia buys American arms. Also Israel no matter what it does is
protected because of guilt (which will be its undoing because its bad
behavior is not being checked). If Russia bought American arms I bet the US
media would love Putin. The US media then would take it upon themselves to
support Putin against his enemies.
Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian
proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the
preferred outcome for the US media. Its irrational unless you realize who
its working for. Its not the American people. Its not even working to keep
the US Empire in a position of strength. It demands obedience to the whims
of the Empire's global subjects and its domestic war industry. That is what
this Russian crap was about Trump. Maybe they tried to interfere. People
were going to vote the way they voted anyway because Trump struck an
emotional cord with his larger than life personality and the Democrats
conspired against the candidate that could have beaten him (Bernie) while
making sure no one that could win would run for the Democrat nomination.
Also the Israelis are right wing and they get away with stuff the Alt-right
could never get away with in the US (and I hope wouldn't want to engage in).
What they do to the Palestinians is straight out of Nazi Germany before the
holocaust (which is coming for the Palestinians). They loved Trump and voted
for him. US media doesn't make a big deal about this. Any reporter who did
would risk losing their job.
The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put
behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even
bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the
line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied
to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. By being
whores for war profiteers and their global allies the US media makes Russian
government controlled media seem great in comparison. There is no reason why
the US should be a whore for unsavory governments and organizations across
the world. Its 20 trillion in debt and the US media uses verbal abuse and
praise to manipulate the President into making war, while framing the war
into simplistic and cartoonish terms. There are some that are extremely
wealthy. The Europeans could handle their own security but manipulating the
US to do it is easy because of the US media and easily malleable
politicians.
How about the US media find some poor defenseless country and harp up a
war and bleed the US Empire dry of its wealth in a fruitless quagmire and
call it a day? Some of us do have a self preservation instinct and fighting
Russia for the mess in Syria is stupid. If it was me I'd try to get the
defense companies to focus on space and space mining. Whoever controls outer
space will control humanity's destiny. But go ahead bleed the US dry on
these short sided money grabbing crusades so other countries can take over
outer space instead.
"... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat
the experience.
Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton
with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees
from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood.
Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first
class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).
The United States has
dropped its largest non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat against Isis targets in Afghanistan.
But why drop such a gargantuan bomb in the first place? No one can have any sympathy for Isis and
its murderous offshoots, but you don't need to be a military expert to suspect something strange
might be going on here.
Since the US's stated objective was to destroy underground tunnels, wouldn't so-called bunker
buster bombs, which can also be huge and dig deep into the earth, serve the aims of this mission
just as well, if not better?
Look to the history of colonial warfare for the answer. The lands of the colonized have always
served as the western world's laboratory for the newest and worst weapons of war.
Bombs may have been with us since the invention of gunpowder, but the phenomenon of aerial warfare
is only as old as 1 November 1911, when
Libya became the first country to suffer a bombardment from the sky.
Late to the colonial scramble for Africa, Italy coveted Libya, then a province of the failing
Ottoman empire. In 1911, the Italians invaded the north African territory and that November, Lieutenant
Giulio Gavotti flew over Ain Zara, just east of Tripoli. Unbeknownst to his superiors,
Gavotti tossed four 1.5kg
grenades out of his window, pulling the pins with his teeth, and watching them explode on the oasis
town below. He later wrote that he was "really pleased with the result".
Just like today, the press went crazy with the news. The innovation of aerial warfare was mind
blowing. Gavotti was lauded as a true Italian hero, although Europe's professional warriors initially
thought otherwise. They considered the act beneath the rules of civilized combat. Their contempt
didn't last long, and a new era of aerial warfare, especially against "uncivilized" peoples, began.
In 1920, Britain took charge of Iraq, and a popular revolt quickly erupted. The Royal Air Force
responded with a new strategy they called "control without occupation". The thinking was that there
would be no need for large and costly contingents of soldiers on the ground if one could simply bomb
the local population into submission from the sky. And bomb they did. For days, weeks, and months
on end.
Churchill , who in 1919 had penned a memo stating that he was "strongly in favour of using poisoned
gas against uncivilised tribes", even pushed Air Marshal Trenchard in 1920 to "proceed with the experimental
work on gas bombs, especially mustard gas, which would inflict punishment upon recalcitrant natives
without inflicting grave injury upon them". Historians now believe there wasn't enough mustard gas
to go around, so large-scale conventional bombing was left to achieve Britain's desired result in
Iraq.
The United States is not immune to such military opportunism either. The US fired its first depleted
uranium munitions during the 1991 Gulf war. A total of 320 tons (290,300 kgs)
landed in Iraq in that war, and depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, as old
as our solar system now is. The results have been spectacularly
terrible
throughout Iraq, with birth defects and cancer rates disturbingly elevated throughout the country.
The Russian military has exploited its campaign assisting the Assad regime in Syria to test out
162 new weapons systems, including new cruise missiles and long-range bombers. It would seem the
Russians are very proud of their new weapons. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu used the occasion of
Vladimir Putin's 63 rd birthday to
announce that Russia had fired cruise missiles at targets in Syria from the Caspian Sea, some
900 miles away.
Look at the countries mentioned thus far – Libya, Iraq, Syria, and
Afghanistan . Southeast
Asia of course also suffered terribly when it was the west's main laboratory of death and destruction,
but this list of countries should give us a sense of history regarding our current conflicts along
with some much-needed humility about the success of bombing people into submission.
This brings us to the GBU-43/B, a 22,600-pound bomb that is known as a Moab, officially a Massive
Ordinance Air Blast and unofficially a Mother of All Bombs. Developed for the 2003 Iraq war, each
GBU-43/B reportedly
costs $16m. The bomb, which explodes before impact and with a reported blast radius as large
as a mile in diameter, is the second largest non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal. It has never
been used before. Until now.
Once again, the territory inhabited by the "uncivilized" has been shelled so the west can try
out its new lethal toys. Forgotten in all of this is that bombs, especially ones this size, don't
affect only people. Munitions may be aimed at enemies, but an enormous bomb such as this kills plant
life massively as well. When such a bomb detonates, a percussive blast destroys everything in it
fatal path, shattering the insides of humans and animals alike.
The air is literally sucked out of the atmosphere to feed the jealous fire created by its explosion.
The aim of such a bomb is to kill enemies but at what consequence to our earth? There is something
narcissistic to think that bombs of this enormity are an attack on humanity. In fact, they are an
assault on all forms of life.
-->
Devondaddy ,
13m ago
The MOAB used in Afghanistan was almost exactly the same size as Barns Wallace's Grandslam' bomb
deployed by the RAF against the Nazis in 1945.
Sorry if that doesn't fit with the narrative, but in conflict the most appropriate weapons are deployed
irrespective of who the enemy are.
Try reading a little military history if you are going to write about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb
)
Oh, Poison Gas was first used, on Europeans, by Europeans.
Nuclear weapons only use was not on `uncivilised tribes`, but an Industrial Nation, Imperial Japan.
Mostly, we used the most sdvanced weapons, to kill other western forces: only then, were they
used in Colonial wars. Custers men at the Little Big Horn, used single shot rifles, the only repeating
rifles were used by some of the Native Americans. He could have taken `Gatling Guns`he refused!
"The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors did join the battle with a number of Henry and Spencer repeating
rifles" https://www.wired.com/2009/06/dayintech_0625
/
http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-little-bighorn-were-the-weapons-the-deciding-factor.htm
http://custerlives.com/7thcav11.htm
Of course The West doesn't do things like this - as far as its own self portrait is concerned.
You won't find any shade of the opinion of this commentator in the items singing the praises of
America's massive WMDs in the media today. They are so excited about the size of the bomb! About
the message it sends about the West's Greatness. I daresay most men of god will similarly support
it this Sunday by not mentioning the obscenity of calling the bomb a "mother" or deploying it
at Easter. It's just so Christian - killing people of lesser gods en masse at what the West regards
as the holiest time of the year.
Failing banana republics like the US need to distract as much as possible from the domestic problems.
Dropping big bombs in Afghanistan makes Americans think they are still powerful, while the country
is collapsing like a cheap tent.
Note, in the below - famous - Churchill memo on the use of `poison gas` he states quite clearly
the type he envisages using: "making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas".
Lachrymatory means tears/crying, in other words tear gas, formally known as a lachrymatory
agent. He had been in the Trenches, the effects of Mustard gas on the Eyes, Skin & Lungs would
have been familiar to him, read the memo yourself, does it sound like WWI poison gasses: Chlorine,
Phosgene or Mustard gas, was being proposed? Note: the blinded of Mustard Gas, could have lived
until the late 20th Century, why no accounts of them blinded as children, great anti British propoganda,
so why has no such tales of gas blindings from the 1920`s ever been reported from Iraq?
" as shown in a War Office minute of 12 May 1919 in which Winston Churchill argued
:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted
the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent
method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a
bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly
in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good
that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most
deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror
and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."
It amazes me, well, not anymore, how ignorant Americans are. This "Mother" bomb is not the biggest
ever used. One of them yes, but the RAF used a 22,000 pound bomb called the Grand Slam. Carried
by the Avro Lancaster, it was used for highly reinforced positions like U boat pens.
Reply Share
Biggest in terms of the amount of explosives inside it. Grand Slam had just less than half the
amount of explosives inside it that the MOAB does. We used to have a few empty Grand Slam casings
laying around on one of the MoD sites I worked at. Extremely thick steel, to say the least.
Reply Share
Grand Slams were designed to go deep into the ground and explode creating an underground chamber.They
were also known as earthquake bombs.The largest high explosive bomb was the Blockbuster. A 12000lb
bomb 3/4 of the weight of the bomb was the contents.It was designed as a blast bomb.
Reply Share
I spent a bit of my MoD career working with what was euphemistically referred to as "energetic
materials". We had quite a few WW2 relics at one of the sites. From bits of Tallboy and Grand
Slam casings, to all different types of MC and HC bombs. Last I heard the scrappy got his hands
on them, so they're probably baked-bean cans by now.
I have figured out 90% of the US government activity is selling BS to the American people so that
they can continue doing what they're doing without being questioned.
In the big scheme of things this is a big bomb to take out supposedly a large depot of arms
belonging to the ISIS terrorists who were about to commence their spring offensive in that area.
Americans have done bombings like this before (not with MOAB ~~ but hundreds of smaller bombs).
But, the "public relations" aspect of this bombing was just out of this world. For example retired
general McCaffrey on MSNBC said this is a weapon of terror (he meant it in a good way). It terrorizes
ISIS and anyone who cooperates with them. I guess he meant in a "shock and awe" way. The American
media is cheering this, as if no one in the world knows US has nukes and can blow everyone off
the face of the earth several times, until they deployed this weapon. You hear from the talking
heads and their echo chambers, this is going to give a message to the North Koreans and this or
that group. The message North Koreans, and this or that group is getting is US has a huge amount
of weapons, a big military, but after fighting for 16 years in an impoverished country, with a
GDP of $3 billion, US has resorted to biggest nonnuclear weapon in its arsenal to show how tough
they are. The message this sends to the rest of the world is US military is impotent and incompetent,
so is the US government.
"... Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets. Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will not be restored. ..."
"... Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary, but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations," they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon, the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind and responsible for his success. ..."
"... I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day. So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks as his "inside" advisors. ..."
"... Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen. ..."
"... Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there." ..."
"... Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss - because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening. I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately. It's pretty appalling. ..."
quote
----
Goodwin says he asked Trump if he still has confidence in Bannon, who is reportedly feuding with
Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. And Trump didn't exactly disabuse Goodwin
of the idea that Bannon is embattled. In fact, he did quite the opposite.
"I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,"
Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve.
I'm my own strategist, and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing
crooked Hillary."
Thanks b, Lunacy has truly taken over the White House but even more so the U.S. media. How can sanity
be brought back to town?
Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies
of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets.
Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will
not be restored.
I am reading the release of an ex see-i-aye officer that McCain, McMaster, Brennan are in a
huddle and Bannon is out. Somewhat confirming Where is Trump's loyalty? I was winning before
he rescued me:
In an interview with Michael Goodwin of NYPOST
Trump won't definitively say he still backs Bannon
"I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,"
Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know
Steve. I'm my own strategist and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I
was facing crooked Hillary."
He ended by saying, "Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will."
~ ~ ~ ~
My take is Trump has given too much of his presidential responsibility to Jared. Israel and Family
are always First.
Vis Trump and Bannon in terms of Bannon apparently being tossed out:
Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer,
and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary,
but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations,"
they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely
due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump
was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon,
the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind
and responsible for his success.
I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe
that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day.
So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks
as his "inside" advisors.
With Bannon and Kushner not getting along, well, it's a slam dunk that Bannon's out.
"How can sanity be brought to town?"
Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had
some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change.
Clearly, that ain't gonna happen.
Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant
percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the
tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there."
Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and
ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting
the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss -
because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George
Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening.
I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over
the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately.
It's pretty appalling.
How will this end? No doubt, not well, especially if you're brown skinned in the ME. The dog
help us all.
"... Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as "humanitarian" but actually increased human suffering many times over. ..."
"... Tulsi is a really courageous woman. It is tough to fight against the neocon "swamp". Trump already folded. She is still standing. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as "humanitarian" but actually increased human suffering many times
over.
Gabbard is right to be skeptical of the usefulness and righteousness of missile strikes, but deeply stupid to carry water for
the denials by Assad and the Russian state media about complicity for the chemical weapons attacks.
Anne, real skepticism is when you question your own heroes and assumptions.
"... Villagers reported the victims as three-month-old Asma Fahad Ali al Ameri; Aisha Mohammed Abdallah al Ameri, 4; Halima Hussein al Aifa al Emeri, Hussein Mohammed Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, both 5; Mursil Abedraboh Masad al Ameri, 6; Khajija Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, 7; Nawar Anwar al Awlaqi, 8; Ahmed Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab, 11; Nasser Abdallah Ahmed al Dahab, 12. ..."
"... The concierge at Mar-a-Lago had the good manners not to interrupt Trump, Kushner, Bannon and the rest at dinner with pictures of the dead children. Therefore, no change of policy: they can go back to eating and planning the next raid. ..."
"Villagers reported the victims as three-month-old Asma Fahad Ali al Ameri; Aisha Mohammed
Abdallah al Ameri, 4; Halima Hussein al Aifa al Emeri, Hussein Mohammed Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri,
both 5; Mursil Abedraboh Masad al Ameri, 6; Khajija Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, 7; Nawar Anwar
al Awlaqi, 8; Ahmed Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab, 11; Nasser Abdallah Ahmed al Dahab, 12."
The concierge at Mar-a-Lago had the good manners not to interrupt Trump, Kushner, Bannon
and the rest at dinner with pictures of the dead children. Therefore, no change of policy: they
can go back to eating and planning the next raid.
Agent Orange failed to understand that he was elected mostly due to Hillary jingoism, not on his
own merits. [And that voters expect to hism to stop the wars for neoliberal empire expansion as
well as neocons war in support of Israeli regional interests.]
Or was forcefully "converted" into Hillary during the first 100 days of his presidency.
Being omnipotent to unleash military actions is a sign of
imperial presidency, and the sign that the US is not longer
democracy, even if we assume that it was for some period of
time such a republic.
But Bacevich conveniently forgot that this was situation
did not suddenly appeared with Trump -- the case with
several previous Us presidents.
Let's be clear: Syria's Bashar Assad is a bum and probably a
war criminal. Yet it does not follow that the president of the
United States possesses the authority to order an armed attack
on the sovereign state that Assad governs.
That authority rests with the Congress, as Article I, Section
8 of the Constitution explicitly states. As a result of President
Trump's actions, that provision has now become a dead letter.
The last constraints inhibiting the use of force by whoever happens
to be commander-in-chief have now disappeared. When it comes
to initiating hostilities, the occupant of the Oval Office is
now omnipotent.
Granted, presidents have been encroaching on congressional war
powers for decades now. At least since Harry Truman ordered US
troops into Korea back in 1950, the role allotted Congress in
authorizing the use of force has eroded. Not since December 1941
has Congress actually "declared" war, now a quaint notion akin
to asking your girlfriend's dad for her hand in marriage.
True, to sustain a pretense of relevance, Congress has periodically
issued broad statements that essentially give presidents a free
hand to do as they see fit. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964
offers one infamous example of this practice. The so-called Authorization
to Use Military Force, or AUMF, passed with minimal debate on
September 14, 2001, offers a second.
That document directs the president to "use all necessary
and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or
persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided"
the events of 9/11. In effect, it says to the president: You
decide; just keep us safe.
The AUMF is the ultimate blank check. In the 15-plus years
since, senior US officials have cited it as a basis for conducting
military operations against various and sundry evildoers who
had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. It has become the point
of departure for permanent war conducted according to the whim
of whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office. What's left
to the Congress is simply to pay the bills, which it does routinely
with minimal complaint or partisan bickering. When it comes to
funding wars, bipartisanship reigns.
Small wonder then that in initiating hostilities against Syria,
Trump felt no need to consult Congress. In what the New York
Times describes as a "meeting of considerable length," he huddled
with a handful of aides - more than a few of them career military
officers - and rendered a decision. From start to finish, the
process consumed less time than Trump normally spends in signing
off on the construction of a new luxury golf resort.
All indications suggest that this one military action - not much
more than a pinprick really - is a mere prelude. Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson has announced that regime change in Syria
has now become an administration priority. Unless Assad goes
voluntarily, that suggests the prospect of further US military
action, the nature and duration of which remain to be seen. Always
eager to "support the troops," a compliant Congress will pony
up the necessary funds. The $54 billion increase to the Pentagon
budget that Trump has already requested will be just for starters.
Perhaps Trump will convene another "meeting of considerable
length" to assess the consequences likely to follow if and when
Assad is finally removed. We must hope so. The previous results
of regime change - Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 - suggest that
the real trouble begins after the evil dictator leaves the scene.
...
"... I find revealing is that the United States Ambassador to the UN should decide in effect to dictate to the UN. Diplomacy and belligerency differ, Ambassador Haley does not appear to care. ..."
What the outcome may be I have no idea, but what I find revealing is that the United States
Ambassador to the UN should decide in effect to dictate to the UN. Diplomacy and belligerency
differ, Ambassador Haley does not appear to care.
"General Dynamics christens U.S. Navy's USS Thomas Hudner"
By Ryan Maass...April 5, 2017...11:34 AM
"April 5 (UPI) -- General Dynamics Bath Iron Works christened the U.S. Navy's future Arleigh Burke-class
guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner during a ceremony.
The christening took place at Bath Iron Works' shipyard on Saturday, and was attended by the ship's
namesake, Capt. Thomas Hudner. During the Korean War, Hudner intentionally crash-landed his plane
to save Ensign Jesse Brown, the first African-American Navy pilot...
The christening comes almost two after the keel for the vessel was laid down in Bath, Maine. The
Navy expects to commission the ship in Boston in 2018.
Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers are multirole surface ships built to engage threats
in all directions. The vessels can be used to support anti-air warfare as well as anti-submarine
warfare. They can operate independently or as part of larger groups."
Years behind in replacing Arleigh
Burkes*. Nothing replacing the Ticonderoga class cruisers.
Two more hulls and the Arleigh
Burkes class gets an upgrade, designated "Flight III" about 1000 more tons, 4 ft wider stern,
and if it works (might use some new materials GaNi chips) a new radar replacing the 40 year
old Aegis.
The extra weight is to make room for air conditioners to keep all the denser electronics
cool.
The Navy lost Zumwalt (DD 1000) at 3 ships and never got a chance for bigger cruiser class
ships.
A serious compromise and risky proposition with air and missile defenses that are questionable
from the outset.
*there seems to be about 17 new hulls for Arleigh Burke with the last 15 being new "Flt
III" for the newer radar. I see s schedule issue!
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final
sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its
children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war,
it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
It's time to end US military engagements in the Middle East.
Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings - the whole
nine yards. Over and done with.
That might seem impossible in the face of ISIS, terrorism, Iranian ballistic missiles, and
other US security interests, but a military withdrawal from the Middle East is by far the safest
path for the United States and the region. That approach has instructive historical precedents.
America has been no different from other imperial powers in finding itself ensnared repeatedly
in costly, bloody, and eventually futile overseas wars. From the Roman empire till today, the
issue is not whether an imperial army can defeat a local one. It usually can, just as the United
States did quickly in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.
The issue is whether it gains anything by doing so. Following such a "victory," the imperial
power faces unending heavy costs in terms of policing, political instability, guerilla war, and
terrorist blowback.
Wheresoever the Roman conquers, he inhabits. -- Seneca
Iraq has fallen. Saddam's statues are face down in the dust. His evil tyranny is at an end.
So -- can we, like, go home now?
You didn't have to wait long for a perfect symbol of the fundamental weakness at the heart
of the new American imperialism -- sorry, humanitarianism. I'm talking about its chronically short
time frame. I wasn't counting, but the Stars and Stripes must have been up there on the head of
that statue of Saddam for less than a minute. You have to wonder what his commanding officer said
to the marine responsible, Cpl. Edward Chin, when he saw Old Glory up there. ''Son, get that thing
down on the double, or we'll have every TV station from here to Bangladesh denouncing us as Yankee
imperialists!''
An echo of Corporal Chin's imperial impulse can be heard in the last letter Cpl. Kemaphoom
Chanawongse sent home before he and his Marine unit entered Iraq. Chanawongse joked that his camp
in Kuwait was like something out of ''M*A*S*H'' -- except that it would need to be called ''M*A*H*T*S*F'':
''marines are here to stay forever.''
But the question raised by Corporal Chanawongse's poignant final joke -- he was killed a week
later, when his amphibious assault vehicle was blown up in Nasiriya -- is, Are the marines in
Iraq ''to stay forever''? No doubt it is true, as President Bush said, that the America will ''honor
forever'' Corporal Chanawongse and the more than 120 other service personnel so far killed in
the conflict. Honored forever, yes. But there forever? In many ways the biggest mystery about
the American occupation of Iraq is its probable duration. Recent statements by members of the
Bush administration bespeak a time frame a lot closer to ephemeral than eternal. As the president
himself told the Iraqi people in a television broadcast shortly after the fall of Baghdad: ''The
government of Iraq and the future of your country will soon belong to you. . . . We will respect
your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to
Iraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the
rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave.''
What the president didn't make entirely clear was whether the departing troops would be accompanied
by the retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner and his ''Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance,''
newspeak for what would once have been called Omgus -- the Office of Military Government (United
States). Nor was he very specific about when exactly he expected to see the handover of power
to the ''peaceful and representative government'' of Iraqis.
But we know the kind of time frame the president has in mind. In a prewar speech to the American
Enterprise Institute, Bush declared, ''We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day
more.'' It is striking that the unit of measure he used was days. Speaking less than a week before
the fall of Baghdad, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, suggested that Garner would
be running Iraq for at least six months. Other administration spokesmen have mentioned two years
as the maximum transition period. When Garner himself was asked how long he expected to be in
charge, he talked about just three months.
If -- as more and more commentators claim -- America has embarked on a new age of empire, it
may turn out to be the most evanescent empire in all history. Other empire builders have fantasized
about ruling subject peoples for a thousand years. This is shaping up to be history's first thousand-day
empire. Make that a thousand hours.
Let me come clean. I am a fully paid-up member of the neoimperialist gang. Two years ago --
when it was not at all fashionable to say so -- I was already arguing that it would be ''desirable
for the United States to depose'' tyrants like Saddam Hussein. ''Capitalism and democracy,'' I
wrote, ''are not naturally occurring, but require strong institutional foundations of law and
order. The proper role of an imperial America is to establish these institutions where they are
lacking, if necessary . . . by military force.'' ...
"... Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such. ..."
"... Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. ..."
"... Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. ..."
"... Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. ..."
"... Each day the war goes on the hatred increased in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. ..."
"... It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism. ..."
"... sustained applause ..."
"... applause continues ..."
"... sustained applause ..."
"... sustained applause ..."
"... In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. ..."
"... It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ..."
"... A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [ sustained applause ..."
"... Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. ..."
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak
from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of
Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns,
this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are
you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting
the cause of your people?" they ask. And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of
their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have
not really known me, my commitment, or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not
know the world in which they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal
importance to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue
Baptist Church-the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate-leads clearly to this
sanctuary tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is
not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.
Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective
solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National
Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution
of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of
the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never
resolved without trustful give and take on both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with
Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.
Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons
for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and
almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging
in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was
a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were
experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program
broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything on a society gone mad on war.
And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its
poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic,
destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor
and to attack it as such.
Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the
war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons
and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative
to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our
society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which
they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the
cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation
that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity
burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block
in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
... .. ..
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond
in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers
of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply
of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now.
I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until
some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.
They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence
in 1954-in 1945 rather-after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution
in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence
in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France
in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were
not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned
the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government
seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China-for whom the Vietnamese
have no great love-but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants
this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.
For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine
years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the
end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were
defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged
them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the
will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.
After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again
through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should
not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the
most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed and
Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even
to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by
United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell
the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy,
but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their
need for land and peace.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments
which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read
our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish
under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and
apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal
social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.
So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as
we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas
preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties
from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of
them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without
clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers
as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for
their mothers.
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any
action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons
on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps
of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these
voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed
their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist
revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the
peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.
Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations
remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call
"fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds
as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they
cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.
Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated
as our enemies. What of the National Liberation front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC"
or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted
the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in
the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms?
How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there
was nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence
after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of
death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their
actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must
see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent
communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know
that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow
national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part?
They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the
military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form
without them, the only real party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals
and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions
are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore
it up upon the power of a new violence?
Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the
enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view
we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and
grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger
the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain
this lack of confidence in Western worlds, and especially their distrust of American intentions now.
In Hanoi are the men who led this nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the
men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and
the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination
at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth
and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with
Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a unified Vietnam,
and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these
things must be considered.
Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops
in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning
foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even
supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.
Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese
overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made.
Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has
surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north.
He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy.
Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation
of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than
eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried to give a voice to the voiceless
in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned
about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them
to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each
other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after
a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before
long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the
more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we
create a hell for the poor.
Surely this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the
suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being
destroy, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor in America who are paying the double
price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of
the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves
America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative
to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these
words, and I quote:
Each day the war goes on the hatred increased in the hearts of the Vietnamese and in the hearts
of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their
enemies.
It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military
victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat.
The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the
image of violence and militarism.
Unquote.
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no
honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately,
the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly
game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able
to achieve. It demands that we admit we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam,
that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which
we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors
in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.
I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do to begin the long and
difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.
Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere
for negotiation.
Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing
our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.
Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support
in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam
government.
Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the
1954 Geneva Agreement. [ sustained applause ]
Part of our ongoing [ applause continues ], part of our ongoing commitment might well
express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime
which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we
have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country
if necessary. Meanwhile [ applause ], meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have
a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment.
We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in
Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of
protest possible.
As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role
in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. [ sustained applause
] I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own
alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam
a dishonorable and unjust one. [ applause ] Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of
draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. [
applause ] These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment
when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of
humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what
in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that
struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.
The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American
spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [ applause ], and if we ignore this sobering
reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next
generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand
and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these
and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound
change in American life and policy. [ sustained applause ] So such thoughts take us beyond
Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation
was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern
of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This
need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action
of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas
in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels
in Peru.
It is with such activity that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us.
Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable." [ applause ] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role
our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give
up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I
am convinced that if we are to get on to the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must
undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [ applause ], we must rapidly
begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers,
profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets
of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of
our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's
roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho
Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make
their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes
to see than an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [ applause ]
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.
With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West
investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with
no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look
at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western
arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not
just.
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of
settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling
our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of
peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped
and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that
continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift
is approaching spiritual death. [ sustained applause ]
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution
of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities
so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep
us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.
This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. [ applause
] War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear
weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United
States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint
and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive
thrust for democracy [ applause ], realizing that our greatest defense against communism
is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those
conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of
communism grows and develops.
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation
and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being
born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who
sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.
It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness
to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of
the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that
only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure
to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope
today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile
world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment
we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every
valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low [ Audience: ] (
Yes ); the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical
rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole
in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class,
and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This
oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the
world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man.
When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I'm not speaking of
that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions
have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door
which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate
reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another (
Yes ), for love is God. ( Yes ) And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth
God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth
in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the
day.
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The
oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with
the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold
Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against
the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope
that love is going to have the last word." Unquote.
October 23, 2016
|
Posted in
Uncategorized
A propaganda war bubbled up in London last week as an antiquated Russian aircraft
carrier steamed down the English Channel, on its way to the coast of Syria.
NatWest, subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which is mostly owned by
the British government,
announced
that it planned to close the accounts of Russia Today, the Russian
government's news service and television network – presumably because
RT
publishes material critical of Britain and the US.
I read one or two RT items almost every day,
via
Johnson's Russia List
. In fact RT publishes a good deal of
interesting material.
b's quote from Obama is from January 2016. I don't think Obama was EVER serious about fighting ISIS.
He helped to create ISIS when he ignored their rise, calling them al Queda's "JV team". He confirmed
his support for ISIS with his "leading from behind" policy.
In January 2016, the US was starting the charade of separating moderate rebels. We know how that
farce turned out.
Even after the San Bernardino (Dec. 2015) and Orlando (Jun. 2016) terror attacks - attributed to
ISIS - nothing really changed. For Obama it was business as usual.
Trump initiated talks between US military command and Russians for the first time since 2014. Gen.
Dunford met with Gen. Gerasimov in Feb. 2017. We now see Israel stepping up operations in Syria as a
result of US pulling back from the failed
'Assad must go!'
policy.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Has there been any real change or just a hiatus? I don't think we'll know until Trump meets with
Putin.
Many in the US (esp. neocons) will have a hard time coming to terms with a multi-lateral world. Whatever
peace is offered to Russia is likely to be conditioned on pulling Russia out of China's orbit.
I'm sorry about this long contribution, but as I was writing this, more information and
ideas came to hand.
Iraqi situation:
Recently, Iraqi PM Al-Abadi met with President Trump in the White House.
As well as the usual niceties of a meeting between two heads of state in Washington,
the meeting centred around three main areas where the US has objectives that need to be
address by their Iraqi counterparts:
1) The Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU): These forces must be disbanded, and are seen as
a stumbling block in the face of US objectives in Iraq and the wider region. There has been
some indications that PM Al-Abadi will disband them after the elimination of Daesh/ISIS,
allowing those that wish to remain to be integrated into the Iraqi security apparatus and
disbanding those that do not. This is the "objective", but whether Al-Abadi can deliver
is an entirely different matter. Already, Iraqi members of parliament have come out in protest
at there mere possibility of the disbandment of the PMU, stating that the PM does not have
the legal authority to disband them, and it needs parliamentary approval, where any MP voting
for this will be committing political suicide due to the popularity the the PMU among ordinary
Iraqis.
2) Permanent american Bases in Iraq and increasing the number of troops in the country:
This is a big issue for President Trump. During his presidential campaign, he repeatedly
stated the need to control Iraqi oil, and stated that leaving Iraq was a mistake. He even
said this IN FRONT OF PM Al-Abadi several times.There is also widespread concern amongst
Iraqis that the US is on its way back to Iraq, and in large numbers- some report a figure
of up to fifty thousand troops, in permanent bases. There is also a very large US
military base being build in Al Qayyarah area in Northern Iraq (about half way between Beiji
and Mosul), that reports say will equal the size of Incirlik. This is another very "hot"
topic in Iraq, and has widespread rejection by the Iraqi people. Once again, Iraqi MPs state
that Al-Abadi DOES NOT have legal authority to allow permanent bases or keep foreign troops
permanently in Iraq, and that such a step would need approval by parliament. Again, any
MP voting for this will be committing political suicide. There is genuine fear amongst Iraqis
about the situation "after" Daesh/ISIS. The concern is, that in the event the Government
DOES NOT cede to the will of the US, and approve bases and troops etc.. there will be a
dramatic political change, either in the form of a coup, or declaration of a state of emergency,
through which special measures will take place. There is also talk of appointing a military
governor for the mainly Sunni provinces of Nainawa, Salahuldeen (Saladin) and Anbar- a de
facto state within a state- this could link up with Eastern Syria (see bellow).
3) Moving Iraq away from Iran and closer to the Saudi "camp". The recent visit to Iraq by
the Saudi Foreign Minister has been well covered. There was also a meeting between the Iraqi
PM and the Saudi King on the 29th on March. Al-Abadi's speech at the Heads of State of the
Arab League in Jordan (29th March) was notable in that it was close to the Saudi position
on several topics: a) His statement did not mention Syria, b) It stated that Iraq will "expel
ISIS outside Iraq" { ?into Syria as per the objectives of others wishing to topple the Syrian
state}, c) Is stressed the need for a unified Arab front against threats to Iraqi
sovereignty, or the sovereignty of any Arab nation {reference to alleged Iranian interference
in the region}. On the face of it, it seems that Iraq is moving away from Iran and edging
closer to the Saudi camp, albeit slowly, but this is purely at the level of the current
Iraqi government. I think efforts to distance Iraq from Iran and closer to Saudi Arabia
will ultimately fail, for two reasons:
Firstly, The vast majority of Iraqi people view Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Monarchies
very negatively. Unlike Iraqi politicians, who will certainly have some personal gains from
closer ties with Saudi Arabia, Iraqi people are unwilling to just "forgive and forget" how
the Saudis and others persistently conspired against the Iraqi people over the years. It
was the Saudis and other Gulf States who supported Saddam Hussein and his regime, which
oppressed Iraqis terribly, they supported him to the tune of over 200 billion dollars for
the war against Iran and persistently opposed the political process since 2003 (and Democracy
was NOT the reason!). More recently, the Saudis have been supporting Daesh/ISIS
both financially and ideologically. This support has carried on unabated to this day.
Secondly: the links between Iraq and Iran are much closer and deeper than others realise,
and including at a cultural, religious and tribal level, and no government can alter that.
The only exception to this would be a harsh dictatorial regime, such as that of Saddam Hussein,
whereby government policy had absolutely no relation to Iraqi public opinion, and was simply
a tool for carrying out the wishes of the "Dear Leader".
Other Iraq developments:
A) PMU still barred from entering Tel Afar. The Iraqi government has succumbed to pressure
from Turkey to prevent Tal Afar from being liberated, with a threat of invasion by a Turkish
force stationed at the boarder town of Silopi should the PMUs enter Tel Afar.
B) Rumours that Daesh/ISIS evacuating injured/ getting supplies from through a corridor
to the North of Mosul, via Masoud Barzani controlled territory / Turkey, and plans are to
slow down the Iraqi advance long enough for the majority of Daesh/ISIS forces to evacuate
into Syria. The route takes them through Tell Kayf and Batnay (see Southfront mosul situation
update map 31 March
https://southfront.org/military-situation-in-mosul-on-march-31-2017-iraqi-map-update/ ).
Syria situation:
With the ongoing advance towards Raqqa by US/SDF forces, the bid event recently was the
surprise Tabqa operation. It is notable that the airborne landings in Tabqa by a small US/SDF
force occurred with relatively little resistance from Daesh/ISIS, with few casualties.
Some have concluded that the majority of ISIS had already withdrawn. Contrast this with
the Ithriyah-Raqqa offensive carried out by the Syrian Arab Army in 2016, whereby the SAA
suffered heavy casualties and resulted in Daesh/ISIS gains. There are also reports of a
rapid withdraw on ISIS from East As-Suwayda to reinforce strength in Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and
As-Sukhnah.
The US/SDF landings in Tabqa aimed at achieving several objectives. The most important is
blocking the path of the Syrian army and allies from Reqqa.
If/when US/SDF forces defeat Daesh/ISIS in Reqqa , they will have virtual control of
the whole of Eastern Syria, save for three pockets of SAA control in Qamishli, Hasakah and
Deir Ezzur, as well as some areas where Daesh/ISIS will remain.
The Eastern part of Syria is where the baulk of the oil and gas is located as well as
being the agricultural heartland of the country. The US secretary of State, Tillerson
stated that the the US longer sees toppling President Assad as a primary objective. This
may be the case (for now), but on the ground, events are such that Syria is being divided
into regions of influence whereby the Damascus Government no longer has authority over large
swathes of it. We are witnessing a de facto federalisation of Syria, with the Eastern part
no longer under the rule of Damascus, and in effect a US protectorate, with troops on the
ground. The creation of this "region" also serves another critical US objective in
the region - it acts as a "wall" separating Iran & "Shia" Iraq from the Government of Syria
and Lebanon. There are whispers that parts of Western Iraq will be added to this new entity
in a "redrawing" of the political maps in the region. As stated in a previous post of mine,
I believe that Daesh/ISIS will concentrate its forces in Deir Ezzor after its defeat in
Raqqa, for a final "showdown" with other forces. It will likely face both US/SDF and Syrian/Russian
forces there, but time will tell.
Turkey announced the Euphrates Shield has concluded. Turkey has managed to split the two
areas of Kurdish influence in Syria, but I believe the operation was concluded as there
was no more room for Turkey to move, rather than by choice. Erdogan has finally got a foothold
in Norther Syria. Could this area now be used to house refugees as per "safe zones" advocated
by Turkey, Saudi and now the new US administration?
Arab Summit:
Some are sating that the recent summit of the Arabs Heads of State held in Jordan on
March 29th marked the unofficial start of the "Arab NATO" to face Iran. There was the usual
anti-Iran rhetoric from the "usual suspects" but Iraq was usually cold towards Iran. The
question of Palestine was high on the agenda at the summit, but it is thought that this
is merely being used as a tool to provide "political cover" for the upcoming Sunni NATO,
with an expected summit to be held sometime down the line in Washington that will bring
together these Arab leaders together with their Israeli counterparts in a public display
of a new type alliance between Arabs and Israelis to face the "Iranian threat".
War in Yemen:
There are signs that the US is about to enter the war in Yemen, against the government
in Sana'a (Houthi-Saleh alliance). This is seen as a war against Iran in Yemen. There
are currently three US destroyers with support vessels in the Red Sea. The is a media storm
from the Saudi side regarding the port of Hodeida, and that it is used to smuggle weapons
into Yemen, stressing the importance of "taking it out". The next large operation could
well be the battle for the West coast of Yemen (on the Red Sea). The Sana'a forces have
stated that they will NOT tolerate an attack on Hodeida, and any such action will mean a
major escalation on their part. At present, the Sana'a forces have refrained from going
deep into Saudi territory- but this could change and their forces may receive the political
green light to proceed if Hodeida is attacked.
End in sight in Syria .....?
Things seem to be clearing up in Syria.. Daesh/ISIS is on the ropes, US/SDF making steady
progress in the East, and the Syrian army, backed by the Russians is in control of most
of the major population areas, and the fact that the US publicly states that removal of
Assad is no longer a priority have lead some to argued that it is the beginning of the end..
that the players are making their final touches before a political settlement is reached..
they argue that at the start, the US and its allies wanted regime change by supporting the
rebels, and aimed at taking the whole of Syria- this has failed. Now, the US and its allies
are involved directly and will settle for a different model, whereby there are regions of
influence, a division between the US and Russian Axis. I disagree with this. I think it
is still too early, and the US, Turkey, Saudi and other will still relish the overthrow
of the Syrian government- and as things stand, they cant do it, but are still open to seizing
any opportunity that may present itself in the future to achieve this. That is the only
explanation for the lack of full co-ordination between the US and Russia to bring a devastating
defeat to Daesh/ISIS, Al-Nusra and groups allied to them. If the US and its allies were
serious in accepting what gains they have made, then they would start the full co-ordination
of efforts to defeat the extremists with a view of working out a final political settlement.
We have to remember that Daesh/ISIS and other groups are only a tool, a means to an end.
they are weapons on mass destruction- some may have outlived their usefulness and will need
to be exterminated, others still have a role to play.
Its not over yet,. it is not clear what the final outcome for both Iraq and Syria will be
after Daesh/ISIS. As regards Syria, I think there is a false sense of security, and the
danger to the Syrian government will stem from the South- contrary to expectations.
I used to use the term "Obusha" for the hybrid nature of the last two administrations where
the Coke/Pepsi branding masked the fact that the core policies were the same. Perhaps "Trama"
is the term for the current state where the Washington-Wall Street consensus types scream
about how Trump is an abomination while in reality business as usual goes in most areas.
Certainly Trama describes the impact on the rest of the world, particularly in Syria, Yemen,
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.
Excellent analysis. I wonder what the Iranian, Syrian, Hezbollah reaction will
be. Part of Trump's goal, I suspect, is moving Russia away from Iran. There are already
points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran namely that the former has not made the
continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable condition. Which begs the question
what Russia's actual goals in Syria are.
b - thank you... the only dupes who are going to swallow the change in the words, are the
same dupes who believed all the previous lies... meanwhile, until an actual change happens,
it will be the same biz as usual from the same group of liars... they must think folks are
complete idiots to believe any of their bs!! change my ass... hopey changey, lol...
yes b, Haley also said "Assad regime, Iran and Russia committed war crimes"
No, never mind "war crimes" Assad may stay because we failed the regime change thingy
after Mr. Putin entered in support of Syria..Bad Putin who hijacked our elections they are
no match for us. So, our new focus is North Korea, third world dictator Kim Jung-Un, piece
of cake we can readily beat just like we did the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kim Jung's half
brother was offed - we will continue to send a message. This time around we really do intend
to teach NK people a lesson in democracy and vassalship. See..the USA Sec. of War
In London, Mad-Dog Mattis: "North Korea 'Has Got to Be Stopped"
Mad-Dog is an apt descriptor MAD --setting up the final event for total collapse.
I gotta go buy some supplies: plastic sheeting, duct tape, water and food. Can't afford
a luxury underground bunker.
John McCain loves his friends, ISIS.
Here he is outing himself on Hannity Show
saying:
"ISIS! not true" "I know these people intimately, I know these people I am in contact with
them all the time."
Temporarily Sane 19 "There are already points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran
namely that the former has not made the continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable
condition. Which begs the question what Russia's actual goals in Syria are."
There is
the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that Syria retains
its territorial integrity.
US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short term,
short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.
Okay, it is now six years and counting. How many years will it take for you to figure out
that the USA prefers Assad to the religiously conservative rural poor? Maybe both Obama
and Trump took the advice of the RAND corporation:: "Regime collapse, while not considered
a likely outcome, was perceived to be the worst possible outcome for U.S. strategic interests"
Russia's primary goal in Syria is to destroy the Islamic terrorists
so they can't be sent on to Russia. They have already taken out around 4500 terrorists whose
passports show they were from RF states. The Russia media is littered with details of small
scale takfiri terrorist acts around the RF southern borders - the biggest most recent was
6 or so taken out on the border to Chechnya.
Secondary goals include the support for primacy of international law relating to national
integrity, support for an ally, testing military systems in real conditions and increasing
the strength of the multipolar opposition to Anglo-Zionist hegemony.
There is the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that
Syria retains its territorial integrity.
If Kurds get de-facto independence within Syria (according to their manifesto) a la Barzanistan,
resolution of "territorial integrity" technically remains intact. Russia could make such
concessions (even blasted Assad for desiring to return all of Syria's territory) if only
US would agree to barter, so far they didnt (or maybe Trump/Putin already did, who knows).
While for Syria/Iran its as bad as it gets.
US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short
term, short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.
US wont be the one occupying, Kurds will (US will just rule them). Do you think Syria
will start a war with Kurds (especially under US protection)? Of course not. Kurds expanded
their territory 10x (now finishing off ethnic cleansing that ISIS started), occupied as
many oilfields as they could.
Kurds themselves are divided, but US will make sure their puppets have the power, while
pro-Syrian Kurds will be marginalized or simply killed. The idea that Kurds will come to
their senses is slim and most likely wont happen, just look at Barzanistan. Independence
US dangling in front of them is powerful motivator, not to speak of how much influence and
money US, Israel, monarchies, etc. have.
As for Russia, both short and long term its looking after its own interests, which may
or may not be whats the best for Syria. Hence the clashes.
The more US soldiers are stuck in Islamic badlands (Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq) - without
any chances of even remotely favorable outcome - the better it's for America's foes. The
US will keep bleeding financially, emotionally, spiritually and literally, until its military
machine simply unravels and disappears into a memory hole. The Russians and the Chinese
must be watching US moves with utter amazement. America's inability to perform even the
simplest geopolitical calculations may very well be unprecedented in world's history.
While i agree that the goal remains one of dividing Syria, I doubt it will work out as planned
by the US/Saudis/Israelis etc. Raqqa is not Kurd territory and I'm skeptical that the various
arab tribes there are going to accept governance by a Kurd/US alliance. I also wonder why
Kurds are liberating Raqqa. The main advantage to them beyond killing ISIS is really leverage
in negotiations with Assad. Do you want Raqqa back? Well here is what we want. I have a
hard time believing the Kurds really expect to occupy Arab territories under the nose of
Assad, Russia and Turkey for any extended period of time?
Net: capturing Raqqa gives the kurds bargaining power against the Asaad government towards
Kurd autonomy.
06:54 31.03.2017
Get
short URL
0
34
1
0
Increased US military aid or tactical
air support for the Saudi-led coalition involved in Yemen's civil war can only drain
American strength in a remote conflict where it has no real interests, former CIA
analyst and whistleblower John Kiriakou told Sputnik.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The US Department of Defense is considering increasing its
support for Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies in their support for the government
of Yemen seeking to suppress Houthi rebel forces, according to US media reports this
week.
"Any increase in support for the Saudis, whether
in weapons sales, hardware, air support, or anything else, will draw the US into a
conflict in which it has no interest," Kiriakou, who served in the Middle East as a
CIA officer said on Thursday.
Instead, it would only enable the Saudi-led coalition to conflict ever larger
numbers of casualties, increasing hatred of the Sanaa government and thereby
prolonging the conflict, he observed.
"It can only lead to more destruction in an already almost
destroyed country," he said,
Far from ending or alleviating the sufferings of the Yemeni people in the
conflict, increased US aid and support to the Saudi-led coalition would only make
that suffering worse while also further draining US financial resources, Kiriakou
added.
"It will add to human misery among Yemenis, and it will cost
the American taxpayer untold millions of dollars," he stated.
Kiriakou gained international recognition as the only person the US government
sent to prison for exposing the George W. Bush administration's torture program.
After revealing classified information to ABC News in 2007, Kiriakou was sentenced
to 30 months in prison, of which he served 23 months between February 2013 and
February 3, 2015.
"... What are we to make of the chasm between effort expended and results achieved? Why on those increasingly infrequent occasions when Afghanistan attracts notice do half-truths and pettifoggery prevail, rather than hard-nosed assessments? Why has Washington ceased to care about the Afghan war? ..."
"... The answer, it seems to me, is this: As with budget deficits or cost overruns on weapons purchases, members of the national security apparatus - elected and appointed officials, senior military officers and other policy insiders - accept war as a normal condition. ..."
"... Once, the avoidance of war figured as a national priority. On those occasions when war proved unavoidable, the idea was to end the conflict as expeditiously as possible on favorable terms. ..."
"... These precepts no longer apply.... ..."
"... As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion. ..."
"... When was the last time you saw a major economist...or a prominent Democrat complain about wasteful 'defense' spending? ..."
The Never-Ending War in Afghanistan
By ANDREW J. BACEVICH
BOSTON - Remember Afghanistan? The longest war in American history? Ever?
When it comes to wars, we Americans have a selective memory. The Afghan war, dating from October
2001, has earned the distinction of having been forgotten while still underway.
President Trump's Inaugural Address included no mention of Afghanistan. Nor did his remarks
last month at a joint session of Congress. For the new commander in chief, the war there qualifies
at best as an afterthought - assuming, that is, he has thought about it all.
A similar attitude prevails on Capitol Hill. Congressional oversight has become pro forma.
Last week Gen. Joseph Votel, the head of Central Command, told Congress that the Pentagon would
probably need more troops in Afghanistan, a statement that seemed to catch politicians and reporters
by surprise - but that was old news to anyone who's been paying attention to the conflict.
And that's the problem. It doesn't seem that anyone is. At the Senate hearings on the nomination
of James Mattis as defense secretary, Afghanistan barely came up.
To be fair, Mr. Mattis did acknowledge that "our country is still at war in Afghanistan," albeit
without assessing the war's prospects. In response to a comment by Senator John McCain, the Armed
Services Committee chairman, that "we are in serious trouble in Afghanistan," Mr. Mattis merely
allowed that the Taliban had "eroded some of our successes."
That was it. No further follow up. Other members of the committee, Republican and Democratic,
focused on more pressing concerns like seeking to induce Mr. Mattis to endorse military programs
and installations in their home state.
The military brass deserves some of the blame. Soon after Mr. Mattis's hearing, Gen. John Nicholson,
the latest in a long line of American commanders to have presided over the Afghan mission, arrived
in Washington to report on its progress. While conceding that the conflict is stalemated, General
Nicholson doggedly insisted that it is a "stalemate where the equilibrium favors the government."
Carefully avoiding terms like "victory" or "win," he described his strategy as "hold-fight-disrupt."
He ventured no guess on when the war might end.
All of this flies in the face of what the conflict in Afghanistan has become, a reality made
clear in a recent report from the Defense Department's special inspector general for Afghanistan
reconstruction.
Despite appropriating over three-quarters of a trillion dollars on Afghanistan since 2001,
Afghan security forces continue to be plagued by the problem of inflated rolls, with local commanders
pocketing American-supplied funds to pay for nonexistent soldiers; according to the report, "The
number of troops fighting alongside 'ghost soldiers' is a fraction of the men required for the
fight."
Large-scale corruption persists, with Afghanistan third from the bottom in international rankings,
ahead of only Somalia and North Korea. Adjusted for inflation, American spending to reconstruct
Afghanistan now exceeds the total expended to rebuild all of Western Europe under the Marshall
Plan; yet to have any hope of surviving, the Afghan government will for the foreseeable future
remain almost completely dependent on outside support.
And things are getting worse. Although the United States has invested $70 billion in rebuilding
Afghan security forces, only 63 percent of the country's districts are under government control,
with significant territory lost to the Taliban over the past year. Though the United States has
spent $8.5 billion to battle narcotics in Afghanistan, opium production there has reached an all-time
high.
For this, over the past 15 years, nearly 2,400 American soldiers have died, and 20,000 more
have been wounded.
What are we to make of the chasm between effort expended and results achieved? Why on those
increasingly infrequent occasions when Afghanistan attracts notice do half-truths and pettifoggery
prevail, rather than hard-nosed assessments? Why has Washington ceased to care about the Afghan
war?
The answer, it seems to me, is this: As with budget deficits or cost overruns on weapons
purchases, members of the national security apparatus - elected and appointed officials, senior
military officers and other policy insiders - accept war as a normal condition.
Once, the avoidance of war figured as a national priority. On those occasions when war
proved unavoidable, the idea was to end the conflict as expeditiously as possible on favorable
terms.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger.
From the civilians harmed or displaced by violence, to the soldiers killed and wounded, to the
children who play years later on roads and fields sown with improvised explosive devices and cluster
bombs, no set of numbers can convey the human toll of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how
they have spilled into the neighboring states of Syria and Pakistan, and come home to the US and
its allies in the form of wounded veterans and contractors. Yet, the expenditures noted on government
ledgers are necessary to apprehend, even as they are so large as to be almost incomprehensible....
While I strongly
disagree with the
proposed cuts in
domestic spending and
I would not want to
see more defense
spending, let's put
this in context:
"The $54 billion boost
for the military is
the largest since
President Ronald
Reagan's Pentagon
buildup in the 1980s"
In 2016, defense
spending had declined
to 3.9% of GDP. If all
of this passed -
defense spending would
be 4.2% of GDP. Under
Reagan, this ratio was
closer to 7%.
Hey I'm fine with
keeping defense
spending low but this
quote is a bit of
hyperbole.
I know, I know
military spending of
$732.2 billion in 2016
was not really that
high when we stand
upside down and look
in a mirror. Let's
have more, after all
there is the war we
are fighting while not
fighting in Yemen to
consider. Yemen?
"I know, I know military spending of $732.2 billion in 2016
was not really that high when we stand upside down and look
in a mirror. Let's have more, after all there is the war we
are fighting while not fighting in Yemen to consider."
In
constant dollars, "defense spending" is as large as during
the Vietnam war.
The spending was 94.261 billion in 1968 which is according
to measuring worth, "In 2015, the relative value of
$94,261.00 from 1968 ranges from $503,000.00 to
$1,800,000.00."
But war is primarily labor engaged in destroying capital
and killing workers and consumers. Bombs and bullets cost the
labor to manufacture them, as everything is consumption by
the end of wars.
Thus the best measure is "labor earnings of that commodity
is $659,000.00 (using the unskilled wage) or $818,000.00
(using production worker compensation)"
The nominal cost in 2015 from the same source, us
governmentspending.com, is 797.878 billion.
But the number of soldiers in the military, in and out of
combat, is about 3.5 million in 1968 vs 1.4 million today.
The military until Nixon was a major job training system.
The military did virtually everything with soldiers, and
soldiers served an average of 3 years, so in three years, a
soldier, did a few "normal" jobs, while at the same time
being ready to "fight", and serving active soldiers with some
appreciation of why their work mattered to soldiers.
Today, the military no longer provides much in the way of
job training and worker development. It is far less efficient
and productive, and that is the result of bad policy by both
conservatives and progressives.
Progressives are especially bad because they want job
killing defense cuts to pay the poor to not work and stay in
economic dead zones. After all, what progressive has called
for creating a government job Corp of, in population adjusted
terms, at least 3 million workers, drafted into the job Corp,
paid low wages because they are given room and board, and
working for 2-3 years in whatever backwater government sends
you, doing whatever crap job tells you to do?
While we are having fun with nominal figures over time,
defense spending was only $181 billion in 1980 but grew to
$412 billion by 1991. It was $392 billion in 2000 (the last
year of the peace dividend) and grew to $837 billion by 2011
(when we finally pulled out of Iraq). Of course all this
needs to be adjusted for inflation etc.
It goes almost without saying
that our country is extremely
nutty about defense spending.
That is 'ok' (i.e.
'accepted')
because National Security is a
role ceded to the federal guv'mint
by the states, and has a military
focus. The 'general welfare' aspects
of National Security are much less
appreciated/accepted/understood by
the population at large, it would seem.
Yes, I am really frightened. We cut
taxes for the wealthy by $60 billion a year, to spend another $54 billion on the military, and take
away healthcare insurance from 20 million and more. And, in case readers are wondering, we spent
$732.2 billion on the military in 2016:
Our defense spending is as much
as the next 10 countries combined. But sure, let's spend more on it while we cut clean water
projects in the Chesapeake bay cleanup(Trump's nominee to head EPA has opposed the Chesapeake
Bay cleanup):
You're frightened? So am I. My daughter works as an epidemiologist at a state (but all the
staff work on federal grants) and they're all scared that "Trumponomics" will force layoffs
there.
My daughter works as an epidemiologist
at a state (but all the staff work on federal grants) and they're all scared that "Trumponomics"
will force layoffs there.
[ Important, and the Chesapeake Bay is a treasure. ]
CIA and militarism loving Democrats are what is called Vichy left...
Notable quotes:
"... "Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help you. You have become The Borg." ..."
"... There is a large amount of ground between being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies ..."
"... I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them hard regarding all this. ..."
"... US Deep state analogy to Stalin's machinations against his rivals seems reasonable. ..."
"Apparently, most Democrats are now defending the CIA [and bashing the US constitution] and
trashing WikiLeaks (who have never had to retract a single story in all their years). The brainwashing
is complete. Take a valium and watch your Rachel Maddow [read your poor pk]. I can no longer help
you. You have become The Borg."
I am going to make one more point, a substantive one. There is a large amount of ground between
being a Victoria Nuland neocon hawk going around picking unnecessary fights with Russia and engaging
in aggression overt or covert against her or her allies and simply rolling over to be a patsy
for the worst fort of RT propaganda and saying that there is no problem whatsoever with having
a president who is in deep financial hock to a murderous lying Russian president and who has made
inane and incomprehensible remarks about this, along with having staff and aides who lie to the
public about their dealings with people from Russia.
I happen to support reasonable engagement with Russia on matters of mutual interest, and I
think there are many of those. I do not support cheerleading when Russia commits aggression against
neighbors, which it has, and then lies about it. There is a middle ground, but you and ilsm both
seem to have let your brains fall out of your heads onto the sidewalk and then stepped on them
hard regarding all this.
If you find this offensive or intimidating, anne, sorry, but I am not going to apologize. Frankly,
I think you should apologize for the stupid and offensive things you have said on this subject,
about which I do not think you have the intimately personal knowledge that I have.
Reply Wednesday, March 08, 2017 at 12:36 AM
My dear interlocutor
As a once overt and future sleeper cell Stalinist
I'm perplexed by your artful use of Stalinist
In my experience that label was restricted to pinko circles notably
Trotskyists pinning the dirty tag on various shades of commie types
On the other side of the great divide of the early thirties
Buy you --
To you it seems synonymous with Orwellian demons of all stripes
Flynn definitely was compromised deliberately, because he just spoke with Russian ambassador as a private person (but may be on
instructions from Trump) and then understanding that lied to the vice president. So releasing his conversations was a part "color revolution"
against Trump, launched by neocons in intelligence services. As for the role of Jews in this affair is is naive to consider neocons
to be purely ethnically based, although "Israel firster" are an important part of them. So in Fred C. Dobbs post below one needs
to replace "Jew" with "Neocon" in Nixon's remarks. You will instantly see the point and it is difficlut nt to agree with Nixon that
neocons influence is huge threat to the USA. In this sense Nixon proved again that his was very talented, pretty shred politician...
Notable quotes:
"... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
"... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
"... The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power. ..."
"... Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power. ..."
"... Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us. ..."
"... Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo ..."
"... if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance ..."
"... ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies. ..."
"... Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added: ..."
"... "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right? ..."
"... The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it. ..."
"... We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. ..."
"... Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance. ..."
"... The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category. ..."
"... But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules ..."
"... At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence. ..."
Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask yourself if are living in a modern incarnation
of a police state. Intelligence agencies as a pinnacle of political power == police state.
The swamp lost part of the power and fights back.
Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means
a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance is
one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenarios.
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National Security Advisor and the
divide between the intelligence community and Trump.
"Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich
All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump.
Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color revolution. That's what we have
now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:
Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will
stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist
alliance. Deus Vult!
Mike V
In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents per hour. US-based multinational
textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their
profits. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know
about this from WikiLeaks.
How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire their bosses. Communists
want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a Communist - who wants the workers to directly control
the means of production - intervene to block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.
Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't
even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship.
Gg Mo
See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are screaming for it , in their estrogen
soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.
IT WIZARD
Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community
Joe
The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power.
sequorroxx
Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war
and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants
power.
Trisha Holmeide
Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed
their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we
doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not
been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us.
Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo. As the Japanese Imperial Army noted, never
invade America there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass"
In Nixon's day, the Deep State was all about 'Jews in the Guv'mint'. Not gonna happen on Trump's watch, not yet anyway, so that's
something. Now, it's 'Progressives', presumably. Call them NeoLiberals if you like.
... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval
Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews
needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.
Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top
aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters,
William Safire, and then added:
"But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"
Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart.
They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us." ...
The who, what, where, and why of the Trump administration's first major scandal - Michael Flynn's ignominious resignation on
Monday as national security advisor - have all been thoroughly discussed. Relatively neglected, and deserving of far more attention,
has been the how.
The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation
picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence
agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.
We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador
to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.
Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the
existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance.
But a welter of laws, many of them tweaked after the Snowden revelations, govern the distribution of any information that is
acquired by such surveillance. And this is where it's highly relevant that this scandal was started by the public leaking of information
about Mike Flynn's involvement in the monitoring of Kisylak.
The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent
resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance
empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good
thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the
calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category.
But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi!
It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules
At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and
its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into
the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five
different categories of foreign intelligence.
For anything out of the ordinary - and, again, Flynn's status qualifies - the head of the National Security Division would
be notified, and he or she would bring the raw FISA transcript to FBI Director James Comey or his deputy. Then, the director and
his deputy would determine whether to keep the part of the communication that contained Flynn's words. The NSA has its own procedures
for determining whether to destroy or retain the U.S. half of an intercepted communication.
In this case, there were three sets of communications between Flynn and Kislyak, at least one of which is a text message. The
first occurs on Dec. 18. The last occurs on Dec. 30, a day after sanctions were levied against people that the Russian ambassador
knew - namely, spies posing as diplomats.
The factors FBI Director Comey and his deputy would have had to consider in this case are complex. Flynn was a former senior
intelligence official not in power at the time of the communications, though he did have an interim security clearance. Then there
was the policy context: The United States wanted to know why Russia decided not to retaliate, according to the Washington Post.
(Justice Department warned White House that
Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail,
officials say https://wpo.st/fthc2 Feb 13)
But the most important factor would have been that Flynn was talking to the ambassador of a country who has been credibly accused
of interfering in the election of his boss. Regardless of the content of Flynn's side of the call, it would be negligent if the
FBI decided to minimize, or ignore, these calls, simply because Flynn is a citizen who is not subject to surveillance himself.
But what Flynn said in the calls would have played a role in the FBI's determination to keep the transcripts unminimized - a fancy
way of saying "unredacted."
The Justice Department would then decide whether to pursue the matter further. If they thought Flynn was acting as an agent
of a foreign government - and there's not a gram of evidence for this - they could apply for a normal surveillance warrant under
Title III of the U.S. code.
It is rare for the FBI or NSA to distribute raw, unminimized FISA material outside of controlled channels. But given the intelligence
questions at stake, they would have had an obligation to circulate the Flynn transcripts to the National Security Council, which,
during most of January, was peopled with President Obama's staff and detailees from other government agencies.
Sometime before January 12, the fact that these conversations had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about
them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January
16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further
calls when Trump was President.
At this moment, we are four days away from Trump's inauguration. The FBI agents and analysts who monitored the calls, as well
as some NSC officials in the Obama administration, along with a few senior Justice Department attorneys, all knew with certainty
that the content of the calls contradicted Flynn's account of them. The transcript of the Dec. 30 call proved as much.
For reasons unclear to us, the FBI director, James Comey, did not believe that Flynn's misrepresentations amounted to a sufficient
national security risk on January 16 to spring FBI investigators on the Trump team, or even on Flynn. Perhaps he felt that doing
so right before the inauguration would have been too unseemly.
But he did want to know more. In an extraordinary turn, agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days
after Trump was sworn in, according to the New York Times. We don't know what they learned. But by January 26, Comey had dropped
his objections to notifying the White House. (In the interim, Sean Spicer was asked about the calls again, and repeated the Flynn
untruth.)
Acting attorney general Sally Yates informed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, that their account of what Flynn said did
not match what Flynn insisted he said.
McGahn had the clearance to see the transcript, but it's fair to assume that many members of Trump's team probably did not.
But that does not explain why it took 11 days for Vice President Pence, who certainly did have such clearance, to learn about
the Justice Department warning. And it does not explain what the White House was doing as it mulled over this information for
weeks.
Here we have to leave the realm of reasonable conjecture, but the best explanation might be the easiest: incompetence or ineffectiveness
from the White House counsel and an inability to foresee the real world consequences of their own decisions by White House principals.
The country's intelligence agencies, by contrast, were far more clear-sighted in the use of their prerogatives and power.
"... He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments. ..."
"... And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals: ..."
"... Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism ..."
"... Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself. ..."
"... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," ..."
"... This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at ..."
The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president. What would motivate
many people to go out for weekend rallies now?
libezkova -> cm... , -1
"The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president."
You are absolutely wrong. Mission is not accomplished. It is not even started.
Trump IMHO was just a symbol of resistance against neoliberalism that is growing in the USA.
He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal
movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis
of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated"
anti-neoliberal sentiments.
And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals:
Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve
détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and
hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism
(despite
being neoliberal country with neoliberal President -- Putin is probably somewhat similar to Trump
"bastard neoliberal" a strange mixture of neoliberal in domestic politics with "economic nationalist"
on international arena that rejects neoliberal globalization, on term favorable to multinational
corporations).
Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on
Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization
itself.
The problem is there is extremely powerful and influential "fifth column" of globalization
within the country and they can't allow Trump to go this path. As Senator Dick Durbin said about
banks and the US Congress
== quote ==
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to
get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.
On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion:
the banks own the Senate.
"And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many
of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly
own the place,"
== end of the quote ==
This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980.
So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to
return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at
"... Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security. ..."
"... Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually is. ..."
"... If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity. ..."
"... There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today. ..."
The dems are like fishermen, baiting the water (and viewership) and then setting the hook to
try to land the fish. They are following the old DC approach of pursuing one hot topic if there
is any potential for a catch.
The reps did that with the e-mails during the campaign and it paid off for them. They landed
the Hillary carp and found that it rotted from the head anyway.
The dems will see what type of fish, or old tire, or whatever, they land.
The Old Man and The Sea it ain't.
Those three neocon stooges wrote a really interesting piece. I would say this can qualify as
a classic anti-Russian propaganda. All major anti-Russian myths are present.
But in the sea of standard propaganda drivel and anti-Russian myths there are a couple of interesting
admissions (it is difficult to lie all the time ;-)
Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history.
He sees a straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia,
Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the
uprisings of the Arab Spring.
Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests
in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave
the signal," Putin said.
"They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active work." (No
evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society
groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and
the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.
... .. ...
Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene,
and the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of
Michael Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that
Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies,
might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."
In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions
against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood
in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage
of the new President.
... ... ...
*An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded
Russian political parties.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....
Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion
in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the
wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security.
"Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating
defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military
field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any
ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually
is."
I like the OMB historical tables that reflects outlay/ordering authority that is the checking
account to obligate money which might not show up in GDP expenditures for delivery for years.
Tracking GDP metric is limited in perspective, it shows what was delivered and paid for in
the accounting year. It does not show what is on the order books nor what new stuff is added to
the order books.
If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined
to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity.
There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today.
Why I am not sure measuring GDP impact without getting some account information on backlog
procurements means much for any country.
Life
Extension for KC 135, C 5, F-16, F-15, F-18, HH 53K models,
C-130
US bases in the US need infrastructure.
But there are a lot of things that should have less!
What Trump needs is to review "strategy", then figure it
out.
But that approach would make him look like FDR.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:41 PM
anne said in reply to anne...
Notice, $54 billion is not nearly a 10 percent increase in
military spending. The Pentagon budget is not $600 billion
yearly. Rather, the Pentagon budget in 2016 was $732.2
billion in all.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:51 PM
anne said in reply to anne...
$54 / $732 = 7.4%
The increase in military spending
proposed by the president will come to about 7.4% of current
defense spending. I would expect the increase to be augmented
in the course of the year since military spending plans
almost always understate costs and there is reason to think
foreign military operations will continue at least at 2016
levels.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 02:24 PM
"... " the U.S. debt remains , as it has been since 1790, a war debt : the United States continues to spend more on its military than do all other nations on earth put together, and military expenditures are not only the basis of the government's industrial policy; they also take up such a huge proportion of the budget that by many estimations, were it not for them, the United States would not run a deficit at all ..."
"... One element, however, tends to go flagrantly missing in even the most vivid conspiracy theories about the banking system , let alone in official accounts: that is, the role of military power . ..."
"... Karl Marx wrote Das Capital in an attempt to demonstrate that, even if we start from the economists' utopian vision, so long as we also allow some people to control productive capital, and, again, leave others with nothing to sell but but their brains and bodies, the results will be in very many ways barely distinguishable from slavery, and the whole system will eventually destroy itself . ~ David Graeber ..."
" the U.S. debt remains , as it has been since 1790, a war debt : the United States continues
to spend more on its military than do all other nations on earth put together, and military
expenditures are not only the basis of the government's industrial policy; they also take up
such a huge proportion of the budget that by many estimations, were it not for them, the United
States would not run a deficit at all
The essence of U.S. military predominance in the world is, ultimately, the fact that it
can, at will, drop bombs, with only a few hours' notice, at absolutely any point on the surface
of the planet
In fact, a case could well be made that it is this very power that holds the entire world monetary
system, organized around the dollar, together
One element, however, tends to go flagrantly missing in even the most vivid conspiracy theories
about the banking system , let alone in official accounts: that is, the role of military power
. There's a reason why the wizard has such a strange capacity to create money out of nothing.
Behind him there is a man with a gun
Karl Marx wrote Das Capital in an attempt to demonstrate that, even if we start from the
economists' utopian vision, so long as we also allow some people to control productive capital,
and, again, leave others with nothing to sell but but their brains and bodies, the results
will be in very many ways barely distinguishable from slavery, and the whole system will eventually
destroy itself . ~ David Graeber
"... Allen Dulles masterminded the coup that turned Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh out of office and installed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Less than a year later he presided over the operation that ousted Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz. He set in motion plots to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Sukarno in Indonesia, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, and Fidel Castro in Cuba. He delegated to his deputy, Richard Bissell, leadership of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. ..."
"... Corporate greed is not new but for members of the US Congress and the Administartion to support corporate interests over Americans safety and put money ahead of the protection of the people of our country as well as the people of other nations is a violation of our US Constitution and these people should not be immune from prosecution. G.W. Bush destroyed the infrastructure of an entire country and he killed hundreds of thousand of innocent citizens just so Brown & Root and Halliburton, V.P. Cheney's company, could receive billions of dollars of US taxpayer monies to rebuild the very infrastructure that Bush destroyed that provided the life support for the people of Iraq. ..."
"... George W. Bush asked the question after 9/11-- "Why do they hate us?" The answer he came up with was, "Because of our Freedoms." When you read this book, you come face to face for the real reasons THEY (most of the rest of the world) hate us. It's because these Bush's "freedoms" are only for the United States, no other non-white, non-Christian, non-corporate cultures need apply. ..."
"... The missionary Christian, Corporatism of the Dulles Brothers--John, the former head of the largest corporate law firm in the world, then Secretary of State, and his brother Allen, the head of the CIA all the way from Korea through Vietnam -- constitutes the true behavioral DNA of America-in-the-world. It's enough to make you weep for the billions of people this country has deprived of freedom and security for the last sixty years. ..."
"... This book is, in fact, a MUST READ... for anyone who wants to know what their taxes have paid for in the last half century--for anyone who wants to know just exactly why the rest of the world wants either to attack us or throw us out of their countries. And a must read for anyone who no longer wishes their "representatives" in Washington to keep facilitating the stealing and killing all over the world and call it American Exceptionalism. ..."
"... Foster promptly works on a policy of "rollback" to replace the "containment" policy of Truman and Kennan. ..."
"... The 1953 coup of democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddegh in Iran was similar in the sense that it was made more urgent by Mosaddegh's nationalization of British oil interests after the Brits refused to let Mosaddegh audit their books or negotiate a better deal. ..."
"... Kinzer writes that Foster saw a danger in a country like Iran becoming prosperous and inspiring others toward neutrality that might result in eventual creep toward the USSR, hence he and others like him had to be eliminated. How much the coup was driven to help the UK is unknown. The blowback from intervention in South America and Iran has since come back to haunt the US in the form of skepticism and greater Leftist angst against the US and the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. ..."
"... This type of neutrality was against the Dulles' worldview, and in his memoir, Sukarno lamented "America, why couldn't you be my friend?" after the CIA spent a lot of manpower trying to topple his regime in 1958. There was also the training of Tibetan rebels in Colorado in 1957 and the ongoing plot to assassinate Congo's Lumumba, given with Ike's consent. ..."
"... Allen Dulles' reign at CIA reads like the nightmare everyone worried about "big government" warns you about. Experiments interrogating prisoners with LSD, the purchase to the movie rights of books like The Quiet American in order to sanitize them, planting stories in major newspapers, planting false documents in Joseph McCarthy's office to discredit him, along with the private armies and escapades. Dulles comes under official criticism by Doolittle, who wrote that he was a bad administrator, bad for morale, and had no accountability-- all of which was dismissed by Eisenhower who saw Allen as the indispensible man. ..."
"... When Castro seizes power in Cuba, the Eisenhower Administration made it official policy to depose him. ..."
"... Dulles' last act was on the Warren Commission investigating JFK's assassination. This was problematic because Dulles' goal was to keep CIA assassination operations in Cuba a secret. Kinzer writes of Lyndon Johnson's desire to make Oswald a lone gunman with no political attachments, which brings us to a whole other story. ..."
"... I was surprised that President Eisenhower, whose administration is commonly thought to be one of tranquility, approved toppling governments and assassinating leaders. In some ways, he was the front man, for instance urging Congress to approve funds for "maintenance of national independence" but really for fomenting a coup in Syria and installing a king in Saudi Arabia to get US friendly governments to oppose Gamal Nasser (p. 225). ..."
"... the story of these two scions of an American aristocratic family, who were fully steeped in Calvinistic Protestantism (and it's capitalist ethic) and unquestioningly convinced of American Exceptionalism and it's Manifest Destiny to lead the world and make it safe for democracy and American Business ..."
"... It is an exposition of the quintessential, archetypical American (WASP) mindset, worldview or psychology that has motivated our collective international behavior over the past six or seven decades. ..."
"... All State employees that don't hew the line are regularly fired or transferred to obscure jobs or roles and in place are pro-CIA hardliners. ..."
"... There is much here that further condemns Eisenhower. In many cases he fully supported and endorsed their plans while pretending not to, fully employing the most cynical of strategies; "plausible deniability". ..."
"... Having read the 2012 Eisenhower biography by Jean Edward Smith I was surprised here by the wealth of information that ties Eisenhower more directly to clandestine activities and their purposes. Particularly disappointing is his continues build up for the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba after Kennedy's election but before he took office and will little effort to brief the incoming president. Similarly our Vietnam involvement in the 1950's was so deep already as to make a Kennedy pullout far more difficult. ..."
"... There is much here about these issues and the corrupt relationships between the Dulles's prior careers at Sullivan and Cromwell and their support of private interests while working at State and the CIA ..."
"... At the heart of the story is the unfortunate belief by the brothers that if a country was not totally in agreement with American philosophy they were against us. Any nationalist leaders of a former colonial nation that believed in land reform or neutrality on the international scene had to be evil and must be destroyed. If they were not with us, they had to be communist. This American foreign policy changed the history of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central America. ..."
"... Its interesting to note that Kinzer asserts that on the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson in 1953, Eisenhower offered the position of Chief Justice to John Foster Dulles. According to Kinzer, Dulles turned it down because he wanted to stay at the State Department. The story has always been that Ike had promised Earl Warren the first seat on the Supreme Court in exchange for his support in the 1952 election - Warren had been out maneuvered by Richard Nixon to get the bid for the vice presidency. How different legal history would have been had John Foster Dulles become Chief Justice! ..."
"... Author Stephen Kinzer explores the unique situation in which the intelligence gathering agency is also an actor. Throughout he illustrates how the relationship of their leaders enabled two agencies that would normally question and check each other, to work in seamless harmony to carry out the covert operations that both saw as primary instruments of American power. Behind them was President Eisenhower who had used covert operations during World War II and who approved their actions. In the end the author posits that the policies were the President's and the brothers were more his servants than his masters. ..."
One of them was the most powerful US Secretary of State in modern times. The other built the
CIA into a fearsome engine of covert war. Together, they shaped US foreign policy in the 1950s,
with tragic consequences that came to light in the decades that followed. These were the Dulles
brothers, Foster and Allen, born and reared in privilege, nephews of one Secretary of State and
grandsons of another.
What they did in office
Allen Dulles masterminded the coup that turned Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh
out of office and installed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Less than a year later he presided
over the operation that ousted Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz. He set in motion plots to assassinate
Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Sukarno in Indonesia, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Patrice Lumumba in
the Congo, and Fidel Castro in Cuba. He delegated to his deputy, Richard Bissell, leadership of
the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Later, out of office, he chaired the Warren Commission
on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. "'From the start, before any evidence was reviewed, he
pressed for the final verdict that Oswald had been a crazed gunman, not the agent of a national
and international conspiracy.'"
Foster Dulles repeatedly replaced US ambassadors who resisted his brother's assassination plots
in countries where they served. Pathologically fearful of Communism, he publicly snubbed Chinese
foreign minister Chou En-Lai, exacerbating the already dangerous tension between our two countries
following the Korean War. The active role he took in preventing Ho Chi Minh's election to lead
a united Vietnam led inexorably to the protracted and costly US war there. He reflexively rejected
peace feelers from the Soviet leaders who succeeded Josef Stalin, intensifying and prolonging
the Cold War. Earlier in life, working as the managing partner of Sullivan & Cromwell, the leading
US corporate law firm, Foster had engineered many of the corporate loans that made possible Adolf
Hitler's rise to power and the growth of his war machine.
What does it mean now?
At half a century's remove from the reign of the formidable Dulles brothers, with critical
documents finally coming into the light of day, we can begin to assess their true impact on US
history and shake our heads in dismay. However, during their time in office that spanned the eight
years of Dwight Eisenhower's presidency and, in Allen's case, extended into Kennedy's, little
was known to the public about about Allen's activities (or the CIA itself, for that matter), and
Foster's unimaginative and belligerent performance at State was simply seen as a fair expression
of the national mood, reflecting the fear that permeated the country during the most dangerous
years of the Cold War.
Diving deeply into recently unclassified documents and other contemporaneous primary sources,
Stephen Kinzer, author of The Brothers, has produced a masterful assessment of the roles played
at the highest levels of world leadership by these two very dissimilar men. Kinzer is respectful
throughout, but, having gained enough information to evaluate the brothers' performance against
even their own stated goals, he can find little good to say other than that they "exemplified
the nation that produced them. A different kind of leader would require a different kind of United
States."
Their unique leadership styles
To understand Foster's style of leadership, consider the assessments offered by his contemporaries:
Winston Churchill said "'Foster Dulles is the only case I know of a bull who carries his own china
shop around with him.'"
Celebrated New York Times columnist James Reston "wrote that [Foster] had become a 'supreme
expert' in the art of diplomatic blundering. 'He doesn't just stumble into booby traps. He digs
them to size, studies them carefully, and then jumps.'"
Senator William Fulbright, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Foster "misleads
public opinion, confuses it, [and] feeds it pap." "A foreign ambassador once asked Foster how
he knew that the Soviets were tied to land reform in Guatemala. He admitted that it was 'impossible
to produce evidence' but said evidence was unnecessary because of 'our deep conviction that such
a tie must exist.'" (Sounds similar to the attitude of a certain 21st-century President, doesn't
it?)
Allen, too, comes up very, very short: "He was not the brilliant spymaster many believed him
to be. In fact, the opposite is true. Nearly every one of his major covert operations failed or
nearly failed . . . [Moreover,] under Allen's lackadaisical leadership, the agency endlessly tolerated
misfits." He left the CIA riddled with "lazy, alcoholic, or simply incompetent" employees.
Stephen Kinzer was for many years a foreign correspondent for the New York Times, reporting
from more than fifty countries. The Brothers is his eighth nonfiction book. It's brilliant.
W. J. Haufon June 27, 2014
Without John Foster Dulles There Would Have Been No Hitler and No Nazi Germany!
After the Treaty of Versailles mandated the imposition of incredibly severe monetary reparations
on Germany, John Foster Dulles in the 1930s, as a partner in his law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell,
assembled a coalition of banks to lend Germany over $1 trillion, (in today's dollars), supposedly
for them to pay these reparations. Had Foster not organized these massive bank loans to Hitler's
Germany and organized the sale of raw materials such as cobalt to fabricate armor plating to build
Germany's war machine, there would have been no Nazi war machine or an Adolf Hitler to kill millions
of Americans, ally troops and civilians in a war that would have never happened.
As a reward our government appointed John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State so he could continue
his war against democracy by orchestrating the overthrow of democratically elected leaders such
as the Prime Minister of Iran to restore the Shah, and then continuing his reign of terror against
other democratically elected governments such the CIA overthrow of the President of Guatemala
in 1954 by his brother Allen, Director of the CIA, and installing a US controlled puppet President
so the United Fruit could continued its monopolistic hold on the banana industry in that country
and eventually throughout Central and South America and the Caribbean.
Oh did I mention that JFD was a stockholder in United Fruit. Corporate greed is not new
but for members of the US Congress and the Administartion to support corporate interests over
Americans safety and put money ahead of the protection of the people of our country as well as
the people of other nations is a violation of our US Constitution and these people should not
be immune from prosecution. G.W. Bush destroyed the infrastructure of an entire country and he
killed hundreds of thousand of innocent citizens just so Brown & Root and Halliburton, V.P. Cheney's
company, could receive billions of dollars of US taxpayer monies to rebuild the very infrastructure
that Bush destroyed that provided the life support for the people of Iraq.
Our Founding Fathers would never had fought to build a country of democratic principals if
they knew that the political representatives in this country would worship money and support corporate
greed over American human rights and freedoms.
G.W. Bush said that the attacks on 9-11 were because "they hate our freedoms". What a disgrace
for a President to lie and not say it was because we have been interfering and overthrowing democratically
elected governments for decades. Shame on you Mr. Bush, but you will meet your Maker one day and
you can explain why you killed so many people just so you and your friends could receive billions
of dollars in profits. "May God Have Mercy on Your Very Soul"
Mike Feder/Sirius XM and PRN.FM Radio on October 11, 2013
Best Political/Historical Book in Years
You know those reviews clips, headlines or ads that say "Must Read" or, "...if you only read
one book this year..."
I have to say, with all the books I've read before and am reading currently, this one is absolutely
the most eye-opening, informative and provocative one I've come across in many years.
And--after all I've read about American politics and culture--after all the experts I've interviewed
on my radio show... I shouldn't be shocked any more. But the scope of insanity, corruption and
hypocrisy revealed in this history of the Dulles brothers is, in fact, truly shocking.
Just when you thought you knew just how bad the United States has been in the world, you come
across a history like this and you suddenly become aware of the real depths to which "our" government
has sunk in subverting decency, freedom and democracy all over the world.
George W. Bush asked the question after 9/11-- "Why do they hate us?" The answer he came
up with was, "Because of our Freedoms." When you read this book, you come face to face for the
real reasons THEY (most of the rest of the world) hate us. It's because these Bush's "freedoms"
are only for the United States, no other non-white, non-Christian, non-corporate cultures need
apply.
The missionary Christian, Corporatism of the Dulles Brothers--John, the former head of
the largest corporate law firm in the world, then Secretary of State, and his brother Allen, the
head of the CIA all the way from Korea through Vietnam -- constitutes the true behavioral DNA
of America-in-the-world. It's enough to make you weep for the billions of people this country
has deprived of freedom and security for the last sixty years.
I grew up practically in love with America and the Declaration of Independence. When I was
a kid the USA had just beaten the Nazis. I saw the picture of the marines raising the flag at
Iwo Jima. I knew men in my neighborhood that had liberated concentration camps.
But they never taught us the real history of America in high school and barely at all in college.
If they had given us a clear picture of our true history, there never would have been a Vietnam
in the first place--and no Iraq or Afghanistan either; Global Banks wouldn't have gotten away
with stealing all our money and crashing our economy and Christian fundamentalist and corporate
puppets wouldn't have taken over our government.
Karma is real. You can't steal a whole country, kill and enslave tens of millions of human
beings, assassinate democratically elected leaders of countries, bribe and corrupt foreign governments,
train the secret police and arm the military of dictators for decades-- You cannot do all this
and escape the judgment and the punishment of history.
This book is, in fact, a MUST READ... for anyone who wants to know what their taxes have
paid for in the last half century--for anyone who wants to know just exactly why the rest of the
world wants either to attack us or throw us out of their countries. And a must read for anyone
who no longer wishes their "representatives" in Washington to keep facilitating the stealing and
killing all over the world and call it American Exceptionalism.
I'll also add that Stephen Kinzer is also a terrific writer; clear, articulate, factual and
dramatic. His inside the inner circle revelations of the Dulles brothers and their crimes is morbidly
page-turning.
Chris on October 11, 2013
The Dark-side of American foreign policy
The American people and the world at large still feel the reverberations from the policies
and adventures of the Dulles' brothers. They are in part to blame for our difficult relations
with both Cuba and Iran. This history helps answer the question, "Why do they hate us?" The answer
isn't our freedom, it's because we try to topple their governments.
The Dulles brother grew up in a privileged, religious environment. They were taught to see
the world in strictly black and white. Both were well-educated at Groton and the Ivy League schools.
Both worked on and off in the government, but spent a significant amount of time at the immensely
powerful law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell. They had virtually identical world views but nearly opposite
personalities. (John) Foster was dour, awkward, and straight-laced. Allen was outgoing, talkative,
and had loose morals.
There's no need for a blow-by-blow of their lives in this review. The core of the book revolves
around Foster Dulles as the Secretary of State under Eisenhower and Allen as the Director of the
CIA The center of the book is divided into six parts, each one dealing with a specific foreign
intervention: Mossaddegh of Iran, Arbenz of Guatemala, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam, Lumumba of the
Congo, Sukarno of Indonesia and Castro of Cuba.
The Dulles view was that you were either behind the US 110% or a communist, with no room for
neutrals. Neutrals were to be targeted for regime change. The author lays out explicitly all the
dirty tricks our government tried on other world leaders, from poison to pornography. This dark
side of American foreign policy can help Americans better understand our relationships with other
countries.
My difficulty with this book is the final chapter. The author throws in some pop-psychology
such as; people take in information that confirms their beliefs and reject contradictory information,
we can be confident of our beliefs even when we're wrong, etc. The Dulles brothers are definite
examples of these psychological aspects. Then the author says the faults of the Dulles brothers
are the faults of American society, that we are the Dulles brothers. I felt like a juror in a
murder trial during the closing statements, "It's not my client's fault, society is to blame!"
In most of America's foreign adventures, the American people have been tricked with half-truths
and outright lies. Further more, these men received the best educations and were granted great
responsibility. They should be held to a higher standard than "Oh well, everyone has their prejudices."
I agree with the author that the public should be more engaged in foreign policy and have a
better understanding of our history with other nations. However, I think he goes too far in excusing
their decisions because they supposedly had the same beliefs as many Americans.
Harry Glasson August 24, 2015
So Eisenhower wasn't really a "do nothing" president, but based on this book, I wish he had
done less.
This is the most interesting and important book I have read in the past twenty or more years.
Most Americans, myself included, considered John Foster Dulles a great Secretary of State, and
few ordinary people knew Allen Dulles or had any idea how the CIA came to be what it is.
Learning the facts as they have been gradually made public by those who were witnesses, and
others who researched and wrote about the behavior of the United States during the height of the
Cold War has been an enlightening and saddening experience. I was in high school during Eisenhower's
first term, in college during his 2nd term, in the Air Force during JFK's time in office and deployed
to Key West during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
My view of America was the same as that of most Americans. I was patriotic. I bought into the
fear of Communist world dominance and the domino theory. But there was much that was being done
in the name of fighting Communist domination around the world that was monumentally counterproductive,
and contrary what we consider to be some of our basic principles.
This book helps fill important gaps in my knowledge. I highly recommend it to anyone who would
like to know what really was going on during the Cold War, its impact on where we are today, and
Kinzer's take on why it happened that way.
Mcgivern Owen L on August 15, 2015
The Cold War at it Core
This reviewer generally takes careful notes while he reads-the better to compose a future review.
In the case of "The Brothers", he was drawn right into the flow of the story.
"The Brothers" covers the period from the late 1940s to the mid -1960s when John Foster Dulles
was the powerful Secretary of State and Allen Dulles was the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency. They fermented regime changes in Iran. Guatemala, Indonesia, the Belgian Congo and Iran.
And, as many know by now, Cuba as well. The troubles they stirred up in Iran and Cuba persist
to this day. The book jacket also states that the Dulles' "led the United States into the Vietnam
War..." That statement is unproven within these pages. The Vietnam conflict was vastly too complicated
to be reduced to one sentence.
"The Brothers" is sharply written and well documented. There are 55 pages of end notes in a
328 pages of text. Author Kinzer ostensibly turns on the brothers for all their regime changing
activities. He then reverses course and arrives at a most sensible elucidation: The brothers Dulles
were a product of their times and "exemplified the nation that produced them". A different kind
of leader would require a different United States". This reviewer can live with that sentiment.
There was a deadly serious Cold War in session during this period the brothers Dulles were
at the core. Author Kinzer deserves credit for capturing the essence of that era as well as he
does.
Amazon Customer on August 10, 2015
Informative and entertaining while also scary. Author oversimplifies, omits much about diplomacy
besides the Cold War.
This is my third Kinzer book (The Crescent and the Star and Reset), he is a master at spinning
off new books from research collected while writing other books. This work peels back the cover
on U.S. covert and overt foreign policy in the 1950s and what happens when two brothers have too
much power within an Administration that has the public's trust and far too little of its scrutiny.
It is a joint biography of John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles who were Secretary of State (1953-1958)
and CIA Director (1953-1961), respectively.
Some reviewers have pointed out that Kinzer tends to oversimplify his message. For example,
Eisenhower and Dulles' overthrow of Mohammed Mosadegh, for example, may have had something to
do with our needing Britain's support in SE Asia more than simply a crusade to eliminate anyone
who was not clearly "for us" or "against the Communists." This book covers some of the territory
of Trento's Prelude to Terror, Perkin's controversial Confessions of an Economic Hitman and the
similar compilation A Game as Old as Empire. You may not believe what you read here as the facts
certainly seem more like fiction. Did the U.S. really (clumsily) secretly spend blood and treasure
to try and subvert governments on every continent? How many assassinations and overthrows did
Eisenhower surreptitiously give the go-ahead on? Eisenhower essentially comes across as a monster
from our 2015 vantage point. But is he any different than a President Obama who is given intelligence
and orders drone strikes to assassinate enemies of U.S. foreign policy? You be the judge. This
book speaks volumes about what is learned by declassification of documents over time. I will say
that I read a great biography on George Kennan last year and there appears to be little overlap;
Kennan's foreign policy may have been too dovish for the Dulles, but he had helped create the
precursor to the CIA, the Office of Policy Creation, on which both Dulles brothers worked--this
connection gets no attention from Kinzer. Much of the diplomatic effort during the Cold War--
which did exist-- at this time are left unmentioned by Kinzer, which is problematic.
The Dulles family grew up with an international mindset. One grandfather (John W. Foster) was
an Ambassador (before that title was formalized) to several countries, including Russia, before
becoming Secretary of State.The other was a missionary to India. They had other family connections
working in diplomacy and such a career seemed just fine to them. Their father was a conservative
Presbyterian minister who had an awkward relationship with his wayward children. Kinzer writes
that the boys (and their younger sister) essentially saw America as the City on a Hill that was
bringing light to the nations through democracy and capitalism.
Studying at Princeton hitched them to the rising star of Woodrow Wilson, who they adored.
Sister Eleanor deserves her own biography, she was a pioneer as a PhD female economist who did
relief work in WWI, attended Bretton Woods after WWII, and made her own career in diplomatic service.
John Foster (Foster henceforth) attended the Paris peace conference with Wilson and was disappointed
with the outcome, both he and Eleanor arguing along with J.M. Keynes that the German reparations
were simply setting the stage for the next European war. At the time, Foster was working in international
law for U.S. business interests, and even supposedly ghostwrote a rebuttle to Keynes' book to
serve his own interests. Foster's law firm designed the legal arrangements by which U.S. firms
could profit off the German reparations, which allowed him to be wealthy even during the Great
Depression. He was the more religious of the bunch and was mostly faithful to his wife.
Meanwhile, Allen Dulles was serving in the newly-formed Foreign Service while sleeping with
as many women as would have him. In a "What would have been?" moment of history Allen reportedly
brushed off meeting Vladimir Lenin, after Lenin supposedly called him just before Lenin went to
St. Petersburg for the Russian Revolution, in order to engage in a soiree with a couple of blonde
Swiss females. His own sister recounts that he had "at least a hundred" affairs, and his wife
approved of some and disapproved of others. A sign of the times, they remain married although
she probably miserably. This continued on all through his CIA years and makes one wonder why recent
CIA chief David Petraeus had to resign for anything.
Kinzer interestingly calls Wilson out for being a hypocrite, citing his inconsistent application
of the doctrine of self-determination. While that doctrine stirred nationalist sentiment in Eastern
Europe and the Middle East, Wilson obviously didn't apply it to the Philippines, Hawaii, or other
U.S.-occupied territories. Nonetheless, the three sibling Wilson devotees attend the Paris peace
talks together. Foster returns to his law firm where he's made a full partner while Allen remains
in the Foreign Service until joining the firm himself in 1926.
The author ignores much of Foster's religious interest and involvement in these years. Foster
changed his mind several times in life, whether in his religious devotions or from isolationist
to interventionist. Interestingly, Foster was a German sympathizer and refused to believe any
tales being produced about the Nazis as his firm had many German business interests. Allen disagreed
strongly after touring Germany himself, and after Germany began defaulting on its debts the firm
severed ties.
Allen Dulles built up his network through the law firm, the Council on Foreign Relations, and
his old Foreign Service contacts and made a fortune molding business deals for European connections,
including those in Nazi Germany. After the U.S. enters the war, Dulles is recruited by "Wild Bill"
for the new OSS, becoming the first OSS officer behind enemy lines, sneaking into Switzerland
to do so. He meets with all sorts of characters while feeding intelligence to the U.S., much of
which was false, but enough was helpful enough to expand his reputation. Of course, he has many
affairs, including a long one with a woman his wife approved of and shared with him. Interestingly,
when the Valkyrie operation was launched by German traitors to kill Hitler and restore order,
Dulles was the main contact with the U.S. relaying news back to Washington. The participants wanted
to sue for peace, but FDR officially rejected the olive branch and Dulles was not allowed to negotiate
on any such olive branch. After the War, Truman abolishes the OSS.
Foster helps draft the U.N. Charter and becomes an internationalist, seeing world peace as
a Christian ideal. Foster apparently contributed to the "Six Pillars of Peace" outline by the
Federal Council of Churches in 1942. He eventually reverses after the Iron Curtain falls, becoming
a militant anti-Communist and seeing the USSR as truly and evil empire, the antithesis of everything
American. Reinhold Niebuhr eventually pens critiques of Foster as he begins to promote a black-and-white
vision of the world.
Both brothers backed the Dewey campaign in 1948, which left them disappointed. However, Dewey
appoints Foster Dulles to fill a void in the Senate, which immediately elevates Foster into a
higher realm, although he promptly loses the special election for the seat. Nonetheless, he is
appointed to the State Department by Truman and impresses people in negotiating the final treaty
with Japan in 1950. This makes him a good choice for Secretary of State when Eisenhower is elected
in 1952, and Foster promptly works on a policy of "rollback" to replace the "containment"
policy of Truman and Kennan.
However, Kinzer also writes that NSC-68, a top secret foreign policy strategy signed by Truman
in 1950, was monumental in militarizing the response to the USSR and that the Dulles operated
under an NSC-68 mindset. "A chilling decree" according to Kinzer, NSC-68 called for a tripling
of defense spending in order to prevent Soviet influence from overtaking the West. Allen Dulles
was appointed the first civilian director of the CIA and the die was cast.
The 1950s roll like the Wild West, with Eisenhower signing off on expensive operations, assassinations,
and propaganda campaigns at home and abroad. Supposedly, more coups were attempted under Eisenhower
than in any other administration, and recently declassified documents show that Dulles' CIA actively
engaged in Eisenhower-warranted assassination plots in the Congo and elsewhere. Perhaps Richard
Bissell, Eisenhower's enforcer is more to blame than Kinzer allows. The CIA-backed 1954 coup in
Guatemala was actually initiated by Truman years earlier, but demonstrated Eisenhower's resolve.
"Once you commit the flag, you've committed the country." Dulles' secret armies in Guatemala and
the Philippines needed U.S. airpower for support. If the media went with a story exposing operations,
or a pilot was shot down, it didn't matter-- the mission must succeed once the U.S. was committed.
The CIA even used religious-based propaganda in Guatemala to foment political change, having priests
on the CIA payroll publish editorials denouncing Communism.
Guatemala also showed the intersection of U.S. business interests and foreign policy. The coup
was encouraged by the United Fruit Company, which had been a client of the Dulles' NY law firm
and Allen Dulles had served on its Board of Directors; others in the Eisenhower Administration
had ties. While Guatemala's president was democratically elected, he was a leftist, and anyone
showing Leftist sympathies was to be eliminated, particularly in the Western hemisphere. The
1953 coup of democratically elected Mohammed Mosaddegh in Iran was similar in the sense that it
was made more urgent by Mosaddegh's nationalization of British oil interests after the Brits refused
to let Mosaddegh audit their books or negotiate a better deal. Kinzer writes, however, that
Foster in particular was unable to see anyone as "neutral." Mosaddegh believed in democracy and
capitalism and could have been an ally, but Mosaddegh and others like Egypt's Nasser were nationalists
who favored neither the US nor the USSR, but courted deals from both. Kinzer writes that Foster
saw a danger in a country like Iran becoming prosperous and inspiring others toward neutrality
that might result in eventual creep toward the USSR, hence he and others like him had to be eliminated.
How much the coup was driven to help the UK is unknown. The blowback from intervention in South
America and Iran has since come back to haunt the US in the form of skepticism and greater Leftist
angst against the US and the 1979 overthrow of the Shah.
Ho Chi Minh had initially offered the US an olive branch after WWII and was not opposed to working
with US interests, but the more he was rebuffed the more he turned to harder Communism. John Foster
Dulles apparently hated the French for abandoning Vietnam, and never forgave them. While Eisenhower
did not want to replace the French in Vietnam, he eventually warmed to the idea as Foster promoted
the "domino theory" that if one nation fell victim to Communism then others would soon follow
and the eventual war would widen. Better to install brutal dictators as in Iran and South Vietnam
than let a country fall. Another enemy was Sukarno in Indonesia who was trying to thread the needle
between democracy, socialism, nationalism, and Islam. This type of neutrality was against
the Dulles' worldview, and in his memoir, Sukarno lamented "America, why couldn't you be my friend?"
after the CIA spent a lot of manpower trying to topple his regime in 1958. There was also the
training of Tibetan rebels in Colorado in 1957 and the ongoing plot to assassinate Congo's Lumumba,
given with Ike's consent.
Allen Dulles' reign at CIA reads like the nightmare everyone worried about "big government"
warns you about. Experiments interrogating prisoners with LSD, the purchase to the movie rights
of books like The Quiet American in order to sanitize them, planting stories in major newspapers,
planting false documents in Joseph McCarthy's office to discredit him, along with the private
armies and escapades. Dulles comes under official criticism by Doolittle, who wrote that he was
a bad administrator, bad for morale, and had no accountability-- all of which was dismissed by
Eisenhower who saw Allen as the indispensible man.
Eventually both John Foster Dulles and Eisenhower become old and unhealthy, Eisenhower suffering
a heart attack in 1955 and Foster dying of cancer in 1959. Allen Dulles' libido slows slightly
as age takes its toll and he becomes more detached from operations at the CIA, creating a more
dangerous situation. When Castro seizes power in Cuba, the Eisenhower Administration made
it official policy to depose him. While Dulles was officially in charge at the CIA, he was
far detached from the details of the anti-Castro operations which the media had exposed and continued
at great risk of failure.
Newly-elected JFK inherits the Bay of Pigs invasion plans and faces a political dilemma: Back
off and be accused of sparing Castro since the government was invested in success, or go forward
and risk a disaster. Unlike Eisenhower, Kennedy would not consent to air support or other official
military measures to help the CIA's army once it landed, dooming the operation. Those closest
to the operation begged Dulles and others to cancel the operation to no avail. Dulles was enjoying
a speaking engagement elsewhere in the region, giving the appearance of attachment to the operation
while being completely oblivious to its failure. The White House forced him to resign in 1961.
Dulles' last act was on the Warren Commission investigating JFK's assassination. This was
problematic because Dulles' goal was to keep CIA assassination operations in Cuba a secret. Kinzer
writes of Lyndon Johnson's desire to make Oswald a lone gunman with no political attachments,
which brings us to a whole other story.
Kinzer concludes the book with armchair psychology, writing that the Dulles brothers succummed
to cognitive biases, including confirmation bias. They saw everything in the world as they wanted
to, and not as it was. They were driven by a missionary Calvinism and the ideal of American Exceptionalism
that clouded their lenses. They also seemed to consider themselves infallible in their endeavors.
Ultimately, "they are us," writes Kinzer, which is why it is important to learn from them. The
parallels with recent American military and para-military endeavors is also clear, but Kinzer
lets the reader make those comparisons.
I learned a great deal from the history of this book, studying the Dulles is an integral part
in studying the execution of American foreign policy in the Cold War. Some of the omissions, simplifications,
and psychoanalysis mar the book somewhat. 3.5 stars out of 5.
Doug Nort, on April 23, 2015
Too Much Passion;Too Few Facts
This book is marred by Kinzer's repeated overstatements and failures to marshal facts to support
his theses about the Dulles brothers.
His failure to persuade me begins early: In the introduction Kinzler wrote of the naming of
Washington's Dulles airport: "The new president, John F. Kennedy, did not want to name an ultra-modern
piece of America's future after a crusty cold-war militant." He provides no documentation that
Kennedy himself thought that. Given that JFK was proud of his own credentials as a cold warrior,
it is unlikely that was his objection. It is much more likely his objection (or that of the staffer
speaking for him in the matter) was that Foster Dulles was an iconic figure of the Eisenhower
administration-which Kennedy and his New Frontiersmen viewed as having made a hash of things-or
that he was a stalwart of the Republican Party, or that Dulles disapproved of a Catholic becoming
president. Kinzler apparently thinks his sweeping statement is self-evident but it isn't to me.
A few pages later Kinzler gives us another hint that the pages to come will contain sweeping,
unsupported generalizations. He wrote "The story of the Dulles brothers is the story of America."
My goodness, didn't they share their times with FDR and Ralph Bunche and Dwight Eisenhower and
Tom Watson and A. Phillip Randolph and George Marshall and a host of others who, although coming
from backgrounds quite different from the brothers Dulles, are just as much the American story?
The accomplishments and peccadillos of two brothers with an upper-class pedigree is hardly "the
story of America."
Chapter eleven contains several such unsupported or historically blinkered generalizations.
At one point (sorry-I'm a Kindle reader, no page numbers), after noting "the depth of fear that
gripped many Americans during the 1950s." Kinzler asserts that "Foster and Allen were the chief
promoters of that fear." Crowning the brothers as chief fear-mongers ignores some powerful other
voices: Khrushchev, Joe McCarthy, General Curtis Lemay, Nixon, Churchill, Drew Pearson, Robert
Welch and his John Birch Society-the list could continue.
At another point Kinzler says, "They [the brothers] never imagined that their intervention[s]
. . . would have such devastating long-term effects." He cites Vietnam, Iran falling into violently
anti-American leadership, and the Congo descending "into decades of horrific conflict." Regarding
Vietnam, I think most historians would say that JFK, LBJ, and McNamara bear much, much more responsibility
than do the Dulles brothers. As for their Iran and Congo sins, I believe those developments were
much more due to unpredictable consequences than to the Dulles' blindness. Yogi is right: "Predictions
are hard, especially about the future."
And on the same page (excuse me "location") Kinzler is quite certain that "Their lack of foresight
led them to pursue reckless adventures that, over the course of decades, palpably weakened American
security." The reader who already believes that will nod and read on while the reader who expects
this ringing declaration to be followed by specifics that provide powerful support will read it
and say, like the customer in the fast food ad, "where's the beef?"
OK, enough already. Kinzler's writing obviously pushed my buttons and I wouldn't have finished
the book but for it being a selection of my book club. I am fine with criticism of people and
policies when well-documented-for example Michael Oren's Power, Faith and Fantasy-but I lose patience
with book-length op-ed pieces such as The Brothers.
Dale P. Henkenon, April 6, 2015
Cuba Si! Yankee No!
If a work based on Cold War history could construct a case against American (U.S.) exceptionalism,
The Brothers by Stephen Kinzler would be a strong candidate. It illustrates the dangers of a coupling
of foreign policy and covert operations involving what we now know as regime change.
It is a story of the Dulles brothers and coups arranged by the executive branch triad composed
of the President (Ike) and the dynamic duo of the Dulles brothers as Secretary of State and Director
of the CIA (without congressional oversight) in Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Indonesia, the Congo and
Vietnam.
It is a story that deserved to be told and it is told well. It is somewhat slow going at the
start and one-dimensional but is a captivating read regardless. It is not a rigorous biography
or history of the era and the events it depicts. It is driven by the thesis that our actions in
the developing world even though driven by anti-communism or American idealism or Christian fundamentalist
fervor (all were involved) can have baleful results.
The results can be so bad that Americans are now resented and even hated and have been for
generations in large parts of the world. Highly recommended.
R. Spell VINE VOICE on March 28, 2015
Who We Are as Americans in the 50s
Engaging historical perspective that while dragging and repetitive at times, has so much information
that frames our world now, and generally NOT in a positive way, that it should be required reading.
Yes, I was aware of the name as a 61 yr old. But I was not aware of their roles. Not aware of
brothers. Not aware of Allen's involvement in the CIA Nor aware of their careers at the massive
law firm of Cromwell and Sullivan.
But reading this was stunning and made me angry. George Dulles was more responsible for the
Cold War than anyone. And documents after the war shows the Soviets were not near as devious as
we give them credit for. But our fear painted a view of a hidden enemy bent on our destruction.
We missed opportunities with Khrushchev. More importantly and totally unaware to me, these guys
we responsible for government overthrows and were actively involved in the 1950s with alienating
Vietnam leading eventually to a horrible loss of civilian lives and more importantly to me, American
soldiers who were led in to the wrong war at the wrong time.
But let us not forget the documented CIA overthrows of Congo, Guatemala,Indonesia and Iran.
Is this America? Well, in the post WWII world, we lost our values and stooped to such tactics.
There are stories here America doesn't study and they should. How the interface of commerce,
politics and war can lead to disastrous results that haunt us today.
Read this book to learn. Not all of it will make you proud. Yes, I learned. And yes, I'm angry
and ashamed.
Schnitzon February 25, 2015
Allen Dulles May have Inadvertently Saved the US from a Nuclear Holocaust
It is ironic that the Bay of Pigs debacle commissioned by Allen Dulles may have inadvertently
prevented the incineration of millions of Americans in a nuclear holocaust. As the author points
out when John F. Kennedy assumed the presidency he was told by his predecessor Dwight Eisenhower
that the invasion of Cuba by Cuban refugees with support from the US should move forward. As a
young, new President of the US, Kennedy did not want to appear weak so when Dulles presented him
with the plan seeking his approval Kennedy found himself in a box.
On the one hand Kennedy had doubts regarding the chances for success. On the other hand he
wanted to appear strong to the people of the US and the world. This was the first true test of
his presidency and legacy. After the abject failure of the operation Kennedy to his credit took
full responsibility in his address to the American people but he would never again trust the CIA
or the military.
Fast forward tot he Cuban missile crisis. If Kennedy had not experienced the Bay of Pigs failure
he probably would have placed more trust in the military and CIA who were vehemently urging him
to bomb Cuba at various stages of the crisis. If he had taken the military's advice it would have
likely resulted in escalation and possibly nuclear war with Russia. As it turned out Kennedy rejected
the advice and negotiated a settlement which saved face for both sides. Kennedy's wisdom born
of a past failure saved the day.
Compelling and informative about an era which had a darker ...
OLD1mIKEon February 17, 2015
The Dulles Brothers. They changed History.
Five Stars. Great book. Readable. Well researched, Informative. Highly recommended for someone
interested in mid 20th century history or understanding the root cause of the anti-american animosity
in certain parts of the world.
The Dulles brothers played pivotal roles in an incredible number of historic events that shaped
the 20th century. They exemplified american attitudes and beliefs of their day and were placed
in positions to act on these beliefs. The book not only presents their part in history, but also
helps us understand the reasoning behind their actions.
I should leave the book review end with the above paragraphs, but I was originally unaware
of how many key historical events of the 20th century the brothers participated in and influenced.
I find it impossible not to casually speculate on their effect on history. John Foster helped
write the Reparation portion of the WWI Treaty of Versailles. Some historians believe German anger
over the unfairness of the reparations to be one element causing WWII. John Foster helped write
the 1924 Dawes Plan that opened the door to American investment in Germany. Even in 1924 John
Foster was obsessed with fighting communism. He saw a strong Germany as an effective stop gap
against communistic expansion. Foster used his affiliation with Sullivan & Cromwell and his friendship
with Hjalmar Schacht, Hitlers Minister of Economics, to increase American investment in Germany
and its industry. Without international investment, Germany probably could not have supported
it's military aspirations. Allen and the CIA was instrumental in the 1953 Iranian Coup that overthrew
the democratically elected Iranian Government to install the Shaw of Iran. This action and the
heavy handed governing style of the Shaw certainly led to some of the anti American resentment
in the middle east today and the Iranian (Islamic) Rebellion in 1979. The Iranian Rebellion probably
helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. In regard to Vietnam. Foster, acting as Eisenhower's Secretary
of State, refused to sign the 1954 Geneva Accord. Over considerable objections, John Foster and
Allen chose and installed Ngo Dinh Diem as the 1st president of the newly created Republic of
South Vietnam. Diem had been a minor official in Vietnam and was Interior Minister for three months
in 1933. He had not held a job since. Once in power, Allen's CIA helped keep him there. John Foster
continued to support the escalation of our involvement in Vietnam until his death in 1959. Allen
took a hands off approach to the Bay of Pigs operation (17 April 1961), but as the Director of
the CIA, it was his responsibility. JFK fired him in November 1961. There are JFK Assassination
Conspiracy Theory's that include CIA involvement. It is interesting that Lyndon Johnson personally
chose Allen to be a member of the Warren Commission. Add U2 Spy Planes, Congo revolts, overthrow
of South American leaders, Cuba and a host more. The policies and action of these two men changed
global history and probably still effect the beliefs of many today.
Loves the View VINE VOICE on December 2, 2014
Attitude, Access, Ambition and US Foreign Policy
Stephen Kinzer shows how instrumental these brothers were in the design of US foreign policy
in the post war years. He shows how their attitudes and personalities were formed, developed,
and grew to influence the course of history.
The brothers' learned statecraft at their grandfather's side. John W. Foster, US ambassador
to three countries, later served as President Harrison's trouble shooter and Secretary of State.
He helped in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in Hawaii and later used his State Department
connections to engineer government policy to benefit his corporate clients. Kinzer shows how the
brothers benefited from their grandfather's access and came to dual pinnacles of power in shaping
US foreign policy: one heading the CIA, the other the Department of State.
The 1950's operations weren't as hidden as I expected. Allen Dulles, in the Saturday Evening
Post, beamed with pride for removing Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.
He even has copies made of Diego Rivera's critical mural where he is depicted taking money while
his brother shakes hands with a local puppet and Eisenhower is pictured on a bomb. Many willingly
joined in dirty tricks, for instance Cardinal Spellman wrote a pastoral letter to Guatemalan Catholics
calling their President a dangerous communist.
I was surprised that President Eisenhower, whose administration is commonly thought to
be one of tranquility, approved toppling governments and assassinating leaders. In some ways,
he was the front man, for instance urging Congress to approve funds for "maintenance of national
independence" but really for fomenting a coup in Syria and installing a king in Saudi Arabia to
get US friendly governments to oppose Gamal Nasser (p. 225).
With today's internet and 24 hour news cycle, can large covert operations such as those against
the President Sukarno (the first president of Indonesia who naively looked to the US for help
in developing his nation's fledgling democracy) go under the radar? I presume the CIA budget can
still hide items such as the $6 million a year paid to the Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen (who should
have been tried at Nuremberg (p. 185)).
By preventing compromise when compromise was possible, the brothers and President Eisenhower,
prolonged the Cold War into the Khruschev era and sowed the seeds of the Vietnam War. The lack
of reflection or personal responsibility is clear in the quote on p. 283 when years later Allen
Dulles coolly tells Eric Sevareid regarding the torture and murder of Patrice Lumumba, that "
we may have overrated the danger.." How would the Congo be today if the US had left its fledgling
democracy alone, and not have installed Mobutu in a leadership position?
The last coup attempt in the book is the Bay of Pigs. It was an Eisenhower approved intervention
and there seemed that to be no turning back for Kennedy. Its fiasco signaled the end of Allen
Dulles, but not the Cold War since its relic, Vietnam as a domino, was an image deeply ingrained
in policy DNA.
In a side story, the brothers show little consideration to their sister, who had to push to
have a career. She marginally benefits from the family name. They do not see that they have been
born on third base and she on first. In fact, when it is convenient for them, they try to fire
her, yet still go to her house for holiday dinners.
Kinzer concludes with recent work in psychology and personality profiling (" blind ourself
to contrary positions prepared to pay a high price to preserve our most cherished ideas declarations
of high confidence mainly tell you an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind
beliefs become how you prove your identity.." p. 322) that not only characterize the brothers,
but a lot of the thinking in the Cold War.
These paradigms are with us today. Too many politicians and their appointees still their job
as responding to lobbyists, not just for big business, but for foreign countries with interests
contrary to those of the US. Similarly there are those who force their economic ideology on small
and helpless countries. The book tells a sobering and troubling story. It is greatly at odds with
what is taught in high schools. This book has been out for a year now, and it seems the story
told is just more noise in political system. Unfortunately it will make a large event for insiders
in Washington to reflect on what we now call "muscular" foreign policy and its results.
Regnal the Caretakeron November 13, 2014
Nasty lawyers and the rise of CIA
These two globo-corporate lawyers dictated USA foreign policy during governance of four presidents:
Roosevelt, Truman (he signed CIA into the law in 1947), Eisenhower and Kennedy. They were called
'Cold Warriors' and built Cold War model which rested on the premise that any growing social influence
in Third World countries must be resisted because socialist gains are always irreversible. Any
nation that tried to stay 'neutral' had to face CIA interventions that did not bring anything
positive for populations (notably we learn in details about Guatemala, Iran, Congo, Indonesia,
Vietnam and Cuba). Eisenhower times were the worst, when covert capability of CIA grew massively.
Fascinating work by Stephen Kinzer can be easily extrapolated to help explain XXI century behavior
of Washington. Not much has changed.
Craig N. Warrenon November 12, 2014
Making the World Safe for Democracy (and American Business).
I've learned more about the development of American foreign policy and international relations
in the twentieth (and twenty-first) century, especially since WWII, in reading the story of
these two scions of an American aristocratic family, who were fully steeped in Calvinistic Protestantism
(and it's capitalist ethic) and unquestioningly convinced of American Exceptionalism and it's
Manifest Destiny to lead the world and make it safe for democracy and American Business,
than I have anywhere else.
This is more than a biography (or double biography) of two very influential actors in American
history, politics and international relations. It is an exposition of the quintessential,
archetypical American (WASP) mindset, worldview or psychology that has motivated our collective
international behavior over the past six or seven decades.
Digital Rightson June 14, 2014
A "How to Not Run Foreign Policy" Primer
Stephen Kinzer's new book offers a very focused and surgical condemnation of the Dulles brothers
foreign policy collaboration in the 1950's that has resulted in a horrid and nightmarish chain
of events ever since.
Allen Dulles at CIA, first as a lead operative for covert missions and then as it's second
Director and John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State lead foreign policy during the Eisenhower
Presidency. The book goes through six operations to overthrow or destabilize governments through
that time; Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Vietnam and the formerly Belgian Congo.
In each case Kinzer shows the limited lens of cold war anti communism that resulted in the
Dulles' tunnel vision where grouping all non-Pro American groups as enemies and communists. He
equally addresses their lack of personal curiosity and intellect and preference for slogans and
absolutism over analysis or objective debate. All State employees that don't hew the line
are regularly fired or transferred to obscure jobs or roles and in place are pro-CIA hardliners.
It is painful reading. The objective was to both create the world they wanted while limiting
the use of US military personnel to achieve those ends. The short cuts and limited world vision
have exacted a terrible price. Sadly there is not a place in the world where their activities
resulted in any sustainable success and in fact have lead to perhaps millions of deaths and suspicions
and misunderstandings for the next 50 to 60 years.
There is much here that further condemns Eisenhower. In many cases he fully supported and
endorsed their plans while pretending not to, fully employing the most cynical of strategies;
"plausible deniability".
Having read the 2012 Eisenhower biography by Jean Edward Smith I was surprised here by
the wealth of information that ties Eisenhower more directly to clandestine activities and their
purposes. Particularly disappointing is his continues build up for the Bay of Pigs invasion in
Cuba after Kennedy's election but before he took office and will little effort to brief the incoming
president. Similarly our Vietnam involvement in the 1950's was so deep already as to make a Kennedy
pullout far more difficult.
There is much here about these issues and the corrupt relationships between the Dulles's
prior careers at Sullivan and Cromwell and their support of private interests while working at
State and the CIA
It's grim but the writing is good and the story is well worth knowing.
C. Ellen Connally, May 22, 2014
An amazing tale of intrigue and deception
As we fly in or out of Dulles International Airport, no one gives much thought to the namesake,
John Foster Dulles. Sure, he was Secretary of State and some Americans have a vague knowledge
of his brother Allan Dulles, director of the CIA and long time super spy and intelligence person.
Reading Stephen Kinzer's book, THE BROTHERS reveals the truth about the Dulles brothers and how
they changed American and World History.
At the heart of the story is the unfortunate belief by the brothers that if a country was
not totally in agreement with American philosophy they were against us. Any nationalist leaders
of a former colonial nation that believed in land reform or neutrality on the international scene
had to be evil and must be destroyed. If they were not with us, they had to be communist. This
American foreign policy changed the history of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central
America.
There is much blame put on President Johnson for the War in Viet Nam. But reading THE BROTHERS
shows that the roots of the Viet Nam Conflict go back many years. Likewise, the situation in the
Middle East. We have to go back and look at the foreign policy that created the tensions that
now exist and the men that shaped that foreign policy.
Its interesting to note that Kinzer asserts that on the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson
in 1953, Eisenhower offered the position of Chief Justice to John Foster Dulles. According to
Kinzer, Dulles turned it down because he wanted to stay at the State Department. The story has
always been that Ike had promised Earl Warren the first seat on the Supreme Court in exchange
for his support in the 1952 election - Warren had been out maneuvered by Richard Nixon to get
the bid for the vice presidency. How different legal history would have been had John Foster Dulles
become Chief Justice!
Kinzer is a masterful story teller. This book is extremely readable and a must read for understanding
the history of American foreign policy and how individual people can change.
John Berryon March 13, 2014
What Our History Lessons Didn't Tell Us!
It has been a long time since an author has captured my interest so quickly and made me question
everything I have been taught or have learned about our country. Churchill once said Democracy
is the worst kind of government except all others. This comment keeps reverberating around in
my mind as I read this book. I am one of those people that have flown into Dulles airport countless
times, yet never gave a moments thought as to why, what or even if there was a who to the airports
name. I grew up during the cold war and I vividly remember the fear of the Big Russian Bear overtaking
us with their form of government and the possibility of nuclear war. It would have never crossed
my mind that my very own government aided and abetted in promoting this fear in order for us to
gain public moral outrage and support for our endeavors. I kept trying to tell myself this was
different times, yet the author pointed out countless times where there were those in the known
that were summarily dismissed for having counter opinions.Or leaders from our allies that would
not support the Dulles brothers opinions and missions that so disagreed with who we told the world
we were. Abraham Lincoln once said "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test
a man's character, give him power". I can think of no better example of failure in handling power
than the two Dulles brothers. Not only was I continuously shocked by their gross misuse of power,
but I found myself being angry at them as well because of the fear I remember my mother facing
as a widower with three children to raise. She needed not to have been this afraid with all the
other issues she had to deal with but because of President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers
she had to face this fear as well. Whether or not Mr. Kinzer took liberties with the political
agenda's of the leaders we either overthrew or attempted to overthrown does not matter to me at
all. The fact that we promoted our country as a free democracy yet we were willing to dance with
any leader in the world as long as they did exactly what we wanted them to do is so counter to
the way I was raised to believe still leaves me reeling.
Currently in the news President Putin has said in no uncertain terms that the U.S. is responsible
for the revolution taking place in the Ukraine. In the past I would have said he is just another
Russian bully trying to get his way. After reading The Brothers I now wonder what, if anything,
my country had to do with promoting this revolution. I heard our Ukraine Ambassador say almost
word for word what I read in this book our ambassador's under the power of The Brother's said
back during the cold war. The author tells us that the U.S. with its secret prisons and torture's
may have actually invented terrorism.
This author has opened my eyes to a whole new way of thinking and I am so disappointed in opportunities
missed and I am so disappointed with our current leaders for having learned apparently nothing
from history.
If you love reading history then please buy this book and ask your family to read it as well.
Do I believe everything I read, no not usually, but in this case there are just too many facts
that distort my view of who we are to dismiss.
James Gallen VINE VOICE on March 4, 2014
An Indepth Study Of American Covert Action
"The Brothers" tells the story of the brothers Dulles, John Foster and Allen, who drove American
foreign policy through much of the 1950s. Grandsons of Secretary of State John Foster and nephews
of Secretary of State Robert Lansing, the two grew up in an atmosphere mixing high diplomacy with
the spirit of Christian Crusaders. Their path to power was linear. At the law firm of Sullivan
and Cromwell they represented companies with interests around the world and came to see their
clients' interests united with America's. As Foster moved into politics and government service
he often brought Allen with him.
Although expected to be Secretary of State in a Dewey Administration, Foster came in with Dwight
Eisenhower in 1953. With Allen as Director of Central Intelligence, they formed a team that searched
the world for dragons to slay. Guided by a world view of us, American Christian capitalists, against
them, Socialist Evil Doers, they identified their foes and went after them. Among their successes
were Guatemalan President Árbenz, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and Congolese leader
Patrice Lumumba. TYhose who got away included Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. This book is a study
of American covert operations in Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Congo and Cuba. Allen's
Bay of Pigs operation is a case study of disaster.
Author Stephen Kinzer explores the unique situation in which the intelligence gathering
agency is also an actor. Throughout he illustrates how the relationship of their leaders enabled
two agencies that would normally question and check each other, to work in seamless harmony to
carry out the covert operations that both saw as primary instruments of American power. Behind
them was President Eisenhower who had used covert operations during World War II and who approved
their actions. In the end the author posits that the policies were the President's and the brothers
were more his servants than his masters.
Kinzer portrays the Brothers as men with rigid, narrow outlooks that saw enemies in independent
nationalists and conspiracies in disorganized movements. He presents them as two sides of the
coin, the molders and reflectors of public opinion. The book is not flattering. It depicts the
Dulles brothers as men whose flawed expectations caused many problems for the U.S. and the world
by destroying men who America need not have fought. Ultimately he concludes that they were representatives
of the people they served and their successes, and failures, are our own. "The Brothers" forces
the reader to confront a portion of America's past with its triumphs and shames. Although Kinzer
gives his opinions, he provides the facts to permit the reader to form his own. Any serious student
of history would do well to delve beneath the surface of our history and appreciate its deep currents
and lasting effects.
"... an unwillingness or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public conformism, ..."
"... he daringly points out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American. ..."
"... The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip on the shoulder patriotism which so characterizes American nationalism. ..."
"... The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities. ..."
"... The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as the invasion of Iraq. ..."
"... " The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis of political stupidity;" ..."
"... "One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward at a vanished and idealized national past; " ..."
"... " [George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters..., as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever on American behavior and interests ;" ..."
"... I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U.S. regional interests in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do. ..."
... While there are incontestable civilizing elements to America's nationalism, there are
also dangerous and destructive ingredients, a sort of Hegelian thesis and antithesis theme
which places a strong question mark in America's historical theme of exceptionalism.
Unlike in other post-World War II nations, America's nationalism is permeated by values
and religious elements derived mostly from the South and the Southern Baptists, though the
fears and panics of the embittered heartland provide additional fuel.
Lieven's book, among other elements, is also a summation of lots of minor observations--even
personal ones he made as a student in the small town of Troy, Alabama--and historical details
which reflect the grand evolution of America's nationalism. When he says that "an unwillingness
or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public
conformism," then he has the support of Mark Twain who said something to the effect
that we are blessed with three things in this country, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience
and, thirdly, the common sense to practice neither one! Ditto when he daringly points
out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman
in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially
American.
Lieven continues with the impact of the Cold War on America's nationalism and then, having
always expanded the theme of Bush's foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, examines
with commendable perspective the complex and very much unadmitted current aspects of the U.S.'s
relationships with the Moslems, the Iraq War and the impact of the pro-Israeli lobby. It
is the sort of assessment one rarely finds in the U.S. media . He exposes the alienation
the U.S. caused among allies and, in particular, the Arabs and the EU.
Lieven wrote this book with passion and commendable sincerity. Though it comes from a foreigner,
its advice would without question serve not only America's interest but also provide a substantial
basis for a detached and objective approach to solving the intractable Israeli-Palestinian
conflict to the satisfaction of all involved before worse deeds and more burdens materialize.
Tom Munro:
What this book suggests is that a significant number of Americans have an outlook similar
to European countries around 1904. A sense of identification with an idea of nation and a dismissive
approach to other countries and cultures. Whilst in Europe the experience of the first
and second world wars put paid to nationalism in America it is going strong. In fact Europeans
see themselves less as Germans or Frenchmen today than they ever have.
The reason for American nationalism springs from a pride in American institutions but
it also contains a deep resentment that gives it its dynamism . Whilst America as a nation
has not lost a war there are a number of reasons for resentment. The South feels that its values
are not taken seriously and it is subject to ridicule by the seaboard states. Conservative
Christians are concerned about modernism. The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip
on the shoulder patriotism which so characterizes American nationalism.
Of course these things alone are not sufficient. Europeans live in countries that are small
geographically. They travel see other countries and are multilingual. Most Americans do not
travel and the education they do is strong in ideology and weak in history. It is thus easier
for some Americans to develop a rather simple minded view of the world.
The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist
party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist
gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American
forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few
and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities.
The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America
to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America
from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as
the invasion of Iraq.
The book is quite good and repeats the message of a number of other books such as "What
is wrong with America". Probably there is something to be said for the books central message.
Keith Wheelock (Skillman, NJ USA)
A Socratic 'America know thyself': READ IT!, August 13, 2010
Foreigners, from de Tocqueville and Lord Bryce to Hugh Brogan and The Economist's John Micklethwait
and Adrian Woodridge, often see America more clearly than do Americans. In the post-World War
II period, R. L. Bruckberger's IMAGES OF AMERICA (1958) and Jean -Jacques Servan-Schreiber's
THE AMERICAN CHALLENGE (1967) presented an uplifting picture of America.
Two generations later, Englishman Anatol Lieven paints a troubling picture of a country
that is a far cry from John Winthrop's' "city upon a hill."
Has America changed so profoundly over the past fifty years or is Mr. Lieven simply highlighting
historical cycles that, at least for the moment, had resulted in a near `perfect storm?' His
2004 book has prompted both praise [see Brian Urquhart's Extreme Makeover in the New York Review
of Books (February 24, 2005)] and brick bats. This book is not a polemic. Rather, it is a scholarly
analysis by a highly regarded author and former The Times (London) correspondent who has lived
in various American locales. He has a journalist's acquaintance of many prominent Americans
and his source materials are excellent.
I applaud his courage for exploring the dark cross currents in modern-day America. In the
tradition of the Delphic oracle and Socrates, he urges that Americans `know thy self.' The
picture he paints should cause thoughtful Americans to shudder. Personally, I found his
book of a genre similar to Cullen Murphy's ARE WE ROME? THE FALL OF AN EMPIRE AND THE FATE
OF AMERICA.
I do not consider Mr. Lieven anti-American in his extensive critique of American cross
currents. That he wrote this in the full flush of the Bush/Cheney post-9/11 era suggests that
he might temper some of his assessments after the course corrections of the Obama administration.
My sense is that Mr. Lieven admires many of America's core qualities and that this `tough love'
essay is his effort to guide Americans back to their more admirable qualities.
Mr. Lieven boldly sets forth his book's message in a broad-ranging introduction:
" The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis
of political stupidity;"
"Aspects of American nationalism imperil both the nation's global leadership and its
success in the struggle against Islamic terror and revolution;"
"Insofar as American nationalism has become mixed up with a chauvinist version of Israeli
nationalism, it also plays an absolutely disastrous role in U.S. relations with the Muslim
world and in fueling terrorism;"
"American imperialists trail America's coat across the whole world while most ordinary
Americans are not looking and rely on those same Americans to react with `don't tread on
me' nationalist fury when the coat is trodden on;"
"One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward
at a vanished and idealized national past; "
"America is the home of by far the most deep, widespread and conservative religious
belief in the Western world;"
"The relationship between the traditional White Protestant world on one hand and the
forces of American economic, demographic, social and cultural change on the other may be
compared to the genesis of a hurricane;"
"The religious Right has allied itself solidly with extreme free market forces in the
Republican Party although it is precisely the workings of unrestricted American capitalism
which are eroding the world the religious conservatives wish to defend;"
"American nationalism is beginning to conflict very seriously with any enlightened,
viable or even rational version of American imperialism;"
" [George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters...,
as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever
on American behavior and interests ;"
"Nationalism therefore risks undermining precisely those American values which make
the nation most admired in the world;" and
"This book...is intended as a reminder of the catastrophes into which nationalism and
national messianism led other great countries in the past."
Mr. Lieven addressed the above points in six well-crafted and thought-provoking chapters
that I find persuasive. For some readers Chapter 6, Nationalism, Israel, and the Middle East,
may be the most controversial. I am the only living person who has lunched with Gamal Abdel
Nasser and David Ben-Gurion in the same week. I have maintained an interest in Arab-Israeli
matters ever since. I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's
role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents
a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U.S. regional interests
in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do.
In 1955 American historian Richard Hofstadter wrote,
"The most prominent and persuasive failing [of political culture] is a certain proneness
to fits of moral crusading that would be fatal if they were not sooner or later tempered
with a measure of apathy and common sense."
I am confident that Professor Hofstadter would agree with me that AMERICA RIGHT OR WRONG
is a timely and important book.
"... "In fact, this conception of America's purpose expresses not the intent of providence, which is inherently ambiguous, but their own arrogance and conceit. Out of that conceit comes much mischief. And in the wake of mischief come charlatans like Donald Trump." These last sentences sums up the problem of the War mongering Neo-Cons of Republican Party and their imitators in Democratic Party." Honestly it brings to mind the Jehovah witnesses who call on me to save my soul, in spite of the fact I keep reminding them that I am a Hindu and I believe in Karma and do my best to be good to others. But they don't give up just like the Neo-Cons. ..."
"... Brooks himself is a wealthy man who lives in a bubble in Washington and nothing he recommends will impact upon him personally in any way. That is what being a neocon is all about. Why should anyone listen to what he has to say? ..."
"... Putin conspiracy theories regards killing journalists of "Ted" reference have never been proven. I believe the theory that has key wings of the American governing apparatus allowing (not planning but looking the other way) the 9-11-2001 attacks have more credence but I would never comment in a doctrinaire manner that implied policy should revolve around the theory. ..."
"... If you really want to get down on the man, though, follow Columbia professor Andrew Gellman. Here is a sample of his take on Brooks: http://andrewgelman.com/2015/06/16/the-david-brooks-files-how-many-uncorrected-mistakes-does-it-take-to-be-discredited/ ..."
"... To understand David Brooks' "thinking" just go back to his initiation by disciples of Leo Strauss during his undergraduate days at the University of Chicago. It is all there, a "political philosophy" that somehow winds up with initiates convinced that they are a tiny elite that needs to lead dumb Americans in defending civilization, viz, the "West", against barbarism. After my own indoctrination, I was ready to jump in an F-16 and attack, well, just about anybody. See Senator Tom Cotton, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, etc., for other examples of the phenomenon. Washington is crawling with these guys and gals. ..."
"... The trend is to Deep State co-option of democracy, its overthrow or unaccountable management, a confluence with democracy-killing Globalism that seeks to make of all governments multinational corporate subordinates. Which corporatism involves democracy, not at all. ..."
Bacevich
is one of our very few strategic thinkers. What Bacevich has disclosed here is something far more
significant than merely the faults of Brooks' or of neoconservatism generally (and to be fair,
where Brooks goes beyond neoconservatism/nationalism, he can be thoughtful).
What he has disclosed in fact is that America's primary - I emphasize again, primary - strategic
threat is not N. Korea, or radical Islam, or Russia, but its own revolutionary, messianic, expansionist
ideology. That is the source of our woes, our growing insecurities and looming financial bankruptcy
(to say nothing of the sufferings of millions of our victims).
America's strategic problem is its own mental imprisonment: its self-worship, its inability
to view itself - its destructive acts as well as its pet handful of ideas torn from the complex
fabric of a truly vibrant culture - with any critical distance or objectivity.
Joined to that, and as a logical consequence of it - the United States' persistent inability
to view with any objectivity its endless, often manufactured enemies.
Somehow the current situation in the U.S. reminds me of the end of a TV miniseries, "Merlin",
where Sam Neil plays the role of Merlin. At the end, Merlin speaks to his archenemy, Morgana,
that she will loose her grip on the people because they will just stop believing in her and her
powers. And as he speaks, the group of countrymen surrounding Merlin turn their back one after
another at Morgana and after the last one turns her back, Morgana simply vanishes
The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is
that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock. The terrorists that want to kill
us for our liberties You should have included this in your article.
Also, mentioning Jerusalem, a place of madness and fervor, and pain, and strife, that has brought
nothing civilizational to the world, as in par with Rome, Athens, Baghdad, Florence, and other
cultural centres in Iran, China, India, Japan, is an overstretch
"In fact, this conception of America's purpose expresses not the intent of providence, which is
inherently ambiguous, but their own arrogance and conceit. Out of that conceit comes much mischief.
And in the wake of mischief come charlatans like Donald Trump." These last sentences sums up the
problem of the War mongering Neo-Cons of Republican Party and their imitators in Democratic Party."
Honestly it brings to mind the Jehovah witnesses who call on me to save my soul, in spite of the
fact I keep reminding them that I am a Hindu and I believe in Karma and do my best to be good
to others. But they don't give up just like the Neo-Cons.
David Brooks is a Canadian whose son served by choice in the Israeli Defense Forces rather than
the U.S. military. He passed on playing an active role in the wars that his father so passionately
supports. Brooks himself is a wealthy man who lives in a bubble in Washington and nothing he recommends
will impact upon him personally in any way. That is what being a neocon is all about. Why should
anyone listen to what he has to say?
Brilliant! It's about time someone seriously took down David Brooks & Co's faux innocence narrative
of US history. The only point I would add is that this story predates Brooks by a good century
and a half. By identifying its national "interests" with those of the Divine, the US gives itself
an eternal and perpetual get-out-jail-free-card. It seems not to matter that millions are slaughtered
and entire cultures destroyed, as all was all done with the "best of intentions."
It's a poor kind of child who loves his parents only so long as they are more attractive, richer,
and more powerful than other parents, and it is a poor kind of "patriot" who loves his country
only so long as it is more admired, richer, and more powerful than other countries.
"In terms of confessional fealty, his true allegiance is not to conservatism as such, but to the
Church of America the Redeemer." As though having "confessional fealty" to "conservatism" (which
some people indeed have) were any better. Regarding anyone who falls into that category, all I
can do is quote one of the great voices of wisdom for our time: "I pity the fool!"
'The things Americans do they do not only for themselves, but for all mankind.' Well aint that
grand! Brooks must have been intoxicated by his ideas at this point, sounds like Dennis Prager.
It would be easy to laugh at such ideas if they weren't so destructive. Excellent piece.
Brooks son being in the IDF and Brooks own vehemence to destroy an unthreatening (to the US) enemy
of Israel in 2003 is of course of one piece.
Putin conspiracy theories regards killing journalists of "Ted" reference have never been proven.
I believe the theory that has key wings of the American governing apparatus allowing (not planning
but looking the other way) the 9-11-2001 attacks have more credence but I would never comment
in a doctrinaire manner that implied policy should revolve around the theory.
Of course Russia has always needed a strong man to stay intact and I couldn't rule out government
sympathizers might have taken action on their own, those who were alarmed at Russian liberal journalists
fomenting the kind of discord which might suit Victoria Nuland but not Russia staying intact that
is.
Although I actively seek out level-headed conservative thinkers/writers, I've never been a fan
of David Brooks (probably for reasons related to those put forth in this article).
Phil giraldi. if brooks'views are less valid because his son skipped Iraq are bill kristol's and
Elliot Cohen's more valid because their sons were u.s.marines in Iraq?
To understand David Brooks' "thinking" just go back to his initiation by disciples of Leo Strauss
during his undergraduate days at the University of Chicago. It is all there, a "political philosophy"
that somehow winds up with initiates convinced that they are a tiny elite that needs to lead dumb
Americans in defending civilization, viz, the "West", against barbarism. After my own indoctrination,
I was ready to jump in an F-16 and attack, well, just about anybody. See Senator Tom Cotton, Bill
Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, etc., for other examples of the phenomenon. Washington
is crawling with these guys and gals.
"The global trend has been towards democracy for a century now"
The trend is to Deep State co-option of democracy, its overthrow or unaccountable management,
a confluence with democracy-killing Globalism that seeks to make of all governments multinational
corporate subordinates. Which corporatism involves democracy, not at all.
This is the complete talk (excluding the Q&A) of Noam Chomsky speaking at
Yale University on February 25, 1997
San Patch
Thank you, Noam Chomsky. Sharp, articulate, critical. Reminding us to cross-check our
favourite ideologies against the facts. Free markets, my arse. I salute Chomsky's courage, his
intellect and his humanity.
emir yi
He truly is the face of sheer honesty and intellectual openness. So admirable to be able to
be so critical of a system in which otherwise many including himself are subsumed.
Dimitrios Mavridopoulos
I strongly recommend his book World Orders: Old and New, where he substantiates all his
claims and accusations, in a far more coherent manner. He has a long chapter, where he
explains how the principles of free trade and classical economics, have been consistently
violated in history by the developed countries (imperial preference, tariffs,
state-intervention), while demanding that Third World countries conform to them, through the
IMF and the World Bank. Unfortunately he is not a gifted lecturer though he compensates by
being a moral titan
Since defense amounts to 58.8% of federal spending, and since
there is going to be a federal tax cut and since increasing
the federal deficit will be considered a problem, with
defense spending increasing there will be no real or
significant possibility of increasing infrastructure spending
and there will be pressure to significantly cut nondefense
spending.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion
and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan
and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as
governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by
replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the
infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare
to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially
of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the
costs by surveying the major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent,
or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in
current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan
and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year
2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65
billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense
and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year,
2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested
for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and
estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those
are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches
$4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens
cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....
"... entitlement and power means you never have to apologize for anything ..."
"... What the American with power does have in nearly limitless abundance is a grandiose yet unacknowledged sense of entitlement and a volcanic sense of indignation . ..."
Here's the American Disease in a nutshell: entitlement and power means you never have to apologize
for anything. Public relations might require a grudging, insincere quasi-apology, but the person
with power can't evince humility or shame--he or she doesn't have any.
What the American with power does have in nearly limitless abundance is a grandiose yet unacknowledged
sense of entitlement and a volcanic sense of indignation .
"... Under the circumstances, it's easy to forget that, back in 2003, he and other members of the Church of America the Redeemer devoutly supported the invasion of Iraq. They welcomed war. They urged it. They did so not because Saddam Hussein was uniquely evil-although he was evil enough-but because they saw in such a war the means for the United States to accomplish its salvific mission. Toppling Saddam and transforming Iraq would provide the mechanism for affirming and renewing America's "national greatness." ..."
"... In refusing to reckon with the results of the war he once so ardently endorsed, Brooks is hardly alone. Members of the Church of America the Redeemer, Democrats and Republicans alike, are demonstrably incapable of rendering an honest accounting of what their missionary efforts have yielded. ..."
"... Rather than requiring acts of contrition, the Church of America the Redeemer has long promulgated a doctrine of self-forgiveness, freely available to all adherents all the time. "You think our country's so innocent?" the nation's 45th president recently barked at a TV host who had the temerity to ask how he could have kind words for the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Observers professed shock that a sitting president would openly question American innocence. ..."
"... In fact, Trump's response and the kerfuffle that ensued both missed the point. No serious person believes that the United States is "innocent." Worshipers in the Church of America the Redeemer do firmly believe, however, that America's transgressions, unlike those of other countries, don't count against it. Once committed, such sins are simply to be set aside and then expunged, a process that allows American politicians and pundits to condemn a "killer" like Putin with a perfectly clear conscience while demanding that Donald Trump do the same. ..."
Bacevich is an interesting thinker about the danger of the US militarism and neocon dominance
since Reagan.
Recently he speculated about the existence in the USA of a dangerous cult "the Church of
America the Redeemer" which is slightly broader than the concept of neocons. It is an apt synonym
of American Exceptionalism, and American Messianism. See
BTW we can find members of "the Church of America the Redeemer" cult in this forum too:
im1dc and Fred are obvious examples.
== quote ==
In terms of confessional fealty, his true allegiance is not to conservatism as such, but
to the Church of America the Redeemer. This is a virtual congregation, albeit one possessing
many of the attributes of a more traditional religion.
The Church has its own Holy Scripture, authenticated on July 4, 1776, at a gathering of
56 prophets. And it has its own saints, prominent among them the Good Thomas Jefferson, chief
author of the sacred text (not the Bad Thomas Jefferson who owned and impregnated slaves);
Abraham Lincoln, who freed said slaves and thereby suffered martyrdom (on Good Friday no less);
and, of course, the duly canonized figures most credited with saving the world itself from
evil: Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, their status akin to that of saints Peter and
Paul in Christianity.
The Church of America the Redeemer even has its own Jerusalem, located on the banks of the
Potomac, and its own hierarchy, its members situated nearby in High Temples of varying architectural
distinction.
This ecumenical enterprise does not prize theological rigor. When it comes to shalts and
shalt nots, it tends to be flexible, if not altogether squishy. It demands of the faithful
just one thing: a fervent belief in America's mission to remake the world in its own image.
Although in times of crisis Brooks has occasionally gone a bit wobbly, he remains at heart
a true believer.
In a March 1997 piece for The Weekly Standard, his then-employer, he summarized his credo.
Entitled "A Return to National Greatness," the essay opened with a glowing tribute to the Library
of Congress and, in particular, to the building completed precisely a century earlier to house
its many books and artifacts. According to Brooks, the structure itself embodied the aspirations
defining America's enduring purpose. He called particular attention to the dome above the main
reading room decorated with a dozen "monumental figures" representing the advance of civilization
and culminating in a figure representing America itself. Contemplating the imagery, Brooks
rhapsodized:
The theory of history depicted in this mural gave America impressive historical roots, a
spiritual connection to the centuries. And it assigned a specific historic role to America
as the latest successor to Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. In the procession of civilization,
certain nations rise up to make extraordinary contributions At the dawn of the 20th century,
America was to take its turn at global supremacy. It was America's task to take the grandeur
of past civilizations, modernize it, and democratize it. This common destiny would unify diverse
Americans and give them a great national purpose.
This February, 20 years later, in a column with an identical title, but this time appearing
in the pages of his present employer, the New York Times, Brooks revisited this theme. Again,
he began with a paean to the Library of Congress and its spectacular dome with its series of
"monumental figures" that placed America "at the vanguard of the great human march of progress."
For Brooks, those 12 allegorical figures convey a profound truth.
America is the grateful inheritor of other people's gifts. It has a spiritual connection
to all people in all places, but also an exceptional role. America culminates history. It advances
a way of life and a democratic model that will provide people everywhere with dignity. The
things Americans do are not for themselves only, but for all mankind.
In 1997, in the midst of the Clinton presidency, Brooks had written that "America's mission
was to advance civilization itself." In 2017, as Donald Trump gained entry into the Oval Office,
he embellished and expanded that mission, describing a nation "assigned by providence to spread
democracy and prosperity; to welcome the stranger; to be brother and sister to the whole human
race."
Back in 1997, "a moment of world supremacy unlike any other," Brooks had worried that his
countrymen might not seize the opportunity that was presenting itself. On the cusp of the twenty-first
century, he worried that Americans had "discarded their pursuit of national greatness in just
about every particular." The times called for a leader like Theodore Roosevelt, who wielded
that classic "big stick" and undertook monster projects like the Panama Canal. Yet Americans
were stuck instead with Bill Clinton, a small-bore triangulator. "We no longer look at history
as a succession of golden ages," Brooks lamented. "And, save in the speeches of politicians
who usually have no clue what they are talking about," America was no longer fulfilling its
"special role as the vanguard of civilization."
By early 2017, with Donald Trump in the White House and Steve Bannon whispering in his ear,
matters had become worse still. Americans had seemingly abandoned their calling outright. "The
Trump and Bannon anschluss has exposed the hollowness of our patriotism," wrote Brooks, inserting
the now-obligatory reference to Nazi Germany. The November 2016 presidential election had "exposed
how attenuated our vision of national greatness has become and how easy it was for Trump and
Bannon to replace a youthful vision of American greatness with a reactionary, alien one." That
vision now threatens to leave America as "just another nation, hunkered down in a fearful world."
What exactly happened between 1997 and 2017, you might ask? What occurred during that "moment
of world supremacy" to reduce the United States from a nation summoned to redeem humankind
to one hunkered down in fear?
Trust Brooks to have at hand a brow-furrowing explanation. The fault, he explains, lies
with an "educational system that doesn't teach civilizational history or real American history
but instead a shapeless multiculturalism," as well as with "an intellectual culture that can't
imagine providence." Brooks blames "people on the left who are uncomfortable with patriotism
and people on the right who are uncomfortable with the federal government that is necessary
to lead our project."
An America that no longer believes in itself-that's the problem. In effect, Brooks revises
Norma Desmond's famous complaint about the movies, now repurposed to diagnose an ailing nation:
it's the politics that got small.
Nowhere does he consider the possibility that his formula for "national greatness" just
might be so much hooey. Between 1997 and 2017, after all, egged on by people like David Brooks,
Americans took a stab at "greatness," with the execrable Donald Trump now numbering among the
eventual results.
Invading Greatness
Say what you will about the shortcomings of the American educational system and the country's
intellectual culture, they had far less to do with creating Trump than did popular revulsion
prompted by specific policies that Brooks, among others, enthusiastically promoted. Not that
he is inclined to tally up the consequences. Only as a sort of postscript to his litany of
contemporary American ailments does he refer even in passing to what he calls the "humiliations
of Iraq."
A great phrase, that. Yet much like, say, the "tragedy of Vietnam" or the "crisis of Watergate,"
it conceals more than it reveals. Here, in short, is a succinct historical reference that cries
out for further explanation. It bursts at the seams with implications demanding to be unpacked,
weighed, and scrutinized. Brooks shrugs off Iraq as a minor embarrassment, the equivalent of
having shown up at a dinner party wearing the wrong clothes.
Under the circumstances, it's easy to forget that, back in 2003, he and other members
of the Church of America the Redeemer devoutly supported the invasion of Iraq. They welcomed
war. They urged it. They did so not because Saddam Hussein was uniquely evil-although he was
evil enough-but because they saw in such a war the means for the United States to accomplish
its salvific mission. Toppling Saddam and transforming Iraq would provide the mechanism for
affirming and renewing America's "national greatness."
Anyone daring to disagree with that proposition they denounced as craven or cowardly. Writing
at the time, Brooks disparaged those opposing the war as mere "marchers." They were effete,
pretentious, ineffective, and absurd. "These people are always in the streets with their banners
and puppets. They march against the IMF and World Bank one day, and against whatever war happens
to be going on the next They just march against."
Perhaps space constraints did not permit Brooks in his recent column to spell out the "humiliations"
that resulted and that even today continue to accumulate. Here in any event is a brief inventory
of what that euphemism conceals: thousands of Americans needlessly killed; tens of thousands
grievously wounded in body or spirit; trillions of dollars wasted; millions of Iraqis dead,
injured, or displaced; this nation's moral standing compromised by its resort to torture, kidnapping,
assassination, and other perversions; a region thrown into chaos and threatened by radical
terrorist entities like the Islamic State that U.S. military actions helped foster. And now,
if only as an oblique second-order bonus, we have Donald Trump's elevation to the presidency
to boot.
In refusing to reckon with the results of the war he once so ardently endorsed, Brooks
is hardly alone. Members of the Church of America the Redeemer, Democrats and Republicans alike,
are demonstrably incapable of rendering an honest accounting of what their missionary efforts
have yielded.
Brooks belongs, or once did, to the Church's neoconservative branch. But liberals such as
Bill Clinton, along with his secretary of state Madeleine Albright, were congregants in good
standing, as were Barack Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton. So, too, are putative
conservatives like Senators John McCain, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, all of them subscribing
to the belief in the singularity and indispensability of the United States as the chief engine
of history, now and forever.
Back in April 2003, confident that the fall of Baghdad had ended the Iraq War, Brooks predicted
that "no day will come when the enemies of this endeavor turn around and say, 'We were wrong.
Bush was right.'" Rather than admitting error, he continued, the war's opponents "will just
extend their forebodings into a more distant future."
Yet it is the war's proponents who, in the intervening years, have choked on admitting that
they were wrong. Or when making such an admission, as did both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton
while running for president, they write it off as an aberration, a momentary lapse in judgment
of no particular significance, like having guessed wrong on a TV quiz show.
Rather than requiring acts of contrition, the Church of America the Redeemer has long
promulgated a doctrine of self-forgiveness, freely available to all adherents all the time.
"You think our country's so innocent?" the nation's 45th president recently barked at a TV
host who had the temerity to ask how he could have kind words for the likes of Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Observers professed shock that a sitting president would openly question American
innocence.
In fact, Trump's response and the kerfuffle that ensued both missed the point. No serious
person believes that the United States is "innocent." Worshipers in the Church of America the
Redeemer do firmly believe, however, that America's transgressions, unlike those of other countries,
don't count against it. Once committed, such sins are simply to be set aside and then expunged,
a process that allows American politicians and pundits to condemn a "killer" like Putin with
a perfectly clear conscience while demanding that Donald Trump do the same.
What the Russian president has done in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria qualifies as criminal.
What American presidents have done in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya qualifies as incidental
and, above all, beside the point.
Rather than confronting the havoc and bloodshed to which the United States has contributed,
those who worship in the Church of America the Redeemer keep their eyes fixed on the far horizon
and the work still to be done in aligning the world with American expectations. At least they
would, were it not for the arrival at center stage of a manifestly false prophet who, in promising
to "make America great again," inverts all that "national greatness" is meant to signify.
For Brooks and his fellow believers, the call to "greatness" emanates from faraway precincts-in
the Middle East, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. For Trump, the key to "greatness" lies in keeping
faraway places and the people who live there as faraway as possible. Brooks et al. see a world
that needs saving and believe that it's America's calling to do just that. In Trump's view,
saving others is not a peculiarly American responsibility. Events beyond our borders matter
only to the extent that they affect America's well-being. Trump worships in the Church of America
First, or at least pretends to do so in order to impress his followers.
That Donald Trump inhabits a universe of his own devising, constructed of carefully arranged
alt-facts, is no doubt the case. Yet, in truth, much the same can be said of David Brooks and
others sharing his view of a country providentially charged to serve as the "successor to Jerusalem,
Athens, and Rome." In fact, this conception of America's purpose expresses not the intent of
providence, which is inherently ambiguous, but their own arrogance and conceit. Out of that
conceit comes much mischief. And in the wake of mischief come charlatans like Donald Trump.
Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of America's War for the
Greater Middle East: A Military History, now out in paperback.
Apart from being a police officer, firefighter, or
soldier engaged in one of this nation's endless wars, writing a column for a major
American newspaper has got to be one of the toughest and most unforgiving jobs there is.
The pay may be decent (at least if your gig is with one of the major papers in New York
or Washington), but the pressures to perform on cue are undoubtedly relentless.
Anyone who has ever tried cramming a coherent and
ostensibly insightful argument into a mere 750 words knows what I'm talking about.
Writing op-eds does not perhaps qualify as high art. Yet, like tying flies or knitting
sweaters, it requires no small amount of skill. Performing the trick week in and week
out without too obviously recycling the same ideas over and over again-or at least while
disguising repetitions and concealing inconsistencies-requires notable gifts.
David Brooks of the
New York Times
is a gifted columnist. Among contemporary journalists, he is our
Walter
Lippmann
, the closest thing we have to an
establishment-approved public intellectual. As was the case with Lippmann, Brooks works
hard to suppress the temptation to rant. He shuns raw partisanship. In his frequent
radio and television appearances, he speaks in measured tones. Dry humor and ironic
references abound. And like Lippmann, when circumstances change, he makes at least a
show of adjusting his views accordingly.
For all that, Brooks remains an ideologue. In his
columns, and even more so in his weekly appearances on NPR and PBS, he plays the role of
the thoughtful, non-screaming conservative, his very presence affirming the ideological
balance that, until November 8th of last year, was a prized hallmark of "respectable"
journalism. Just as that balance always involved considerable posturing, so, too, with
the ostensible conservatism of David Brooks: it's an act.
Praying at the Altar of American Greatness
In terms of confessional fealty, his true allegiance
is not to conservatism as such, but to the Church of America the Redeemer. This is a
virtual congregation, albeit one possessing many of the attributes of a more traditional
religion. The Church has its own Holy Scripture, authenticated on July 4, 1776, at a
gathering of 56 prophets. And it has its own saints, prominent among them the Good
Thomas Jefferson, chief author of the sacred text (not the Bad Thomas Jefferson who
owned and impregnated slaves); Abraham Lincoln, who freed said slaves and thereby
suffered martyrdom (on Good Friday no less); and, of course, the duly canonized figures
most credited with saving the world itself from evil: Winston Churchill and Franklin
Roosevelt, their status akin to that of saints Peter and Paul in Christianity. The
Church of America the Redeemer even has its own Jerusalem, located on the banks of the
Potomac, and its own hierarchy, its members situated nearby in High Temples of varying
architectural distinction.
This ecumenical enterprise does not prize theological
rigor. When it comes to shalts and shalt nots, it tends to be flexible, if not
altogether squishy. It demands of the faithful just one thing: a fervent belief in
America's mission to remake the world in its own image. Although in times of crisis
Brooks has occasionally gone a bit wobbly, he remains at heart a true believer.
In a March 1997 piece for
The Weekly Standard,
his then-employer, he summarized his credo. Entitled "
A
Return to National Greatness
," the essay
opened with a glowing tribute to the Library of Congress and, in particular, to the
building completed precisely a century earlier to house its many books and artifacts.
According to Brooks, the structure itself embodied the aspirations defining America's
enduring purpose. He called particular attention to the dome above the main reading room
decorated with a dozen "monumental figures" representing the advance of civilization and
culminating in a figure representing America itself. Contemplating the imagery, Brooks
rhapsodized:
The theory of history depicted in this mural gave
America impressive historical roots, a spiritual connection to the centuries. And it
assigned a specific historic role to America as the latest successor to Jerusalem,
Athens, and Rome. In the procession of civilization, certain nations rise up to make
extraordinary contributions At the dawn of the 20th century, America was to take its
turn at global supremacy. It was America's task to take the grandeur of past
civilizations, modernize it, and democratize it. This common destiny would unify
diverse Americans and give them a great national purpose.
This February, 20 years later, in a
column
with an identical title, but this time appearing in the pages of his present employer,
the
New York Times,
Brooks revisited this theme. Again, he began with a paean
to the Library of Congress and its spectacular dome with its series of "monumental
figures" that placed America "at the vanguard of the great human march of progress." For
Brooks, those 12 allegorical figures convey a profound truth.
America is the grateful inheritor of other people's
gifts. It has a spiritual connection to all people in all places, but also an
exceptional role. America culminates history. It advances a way of life and a
democratic model that will provide people everywhere with dignity. The things
Americans do are not for themselves only, but for all mankind.
In 1997, in the midst of the Clinton presidency,
Brooks had written that "America's mission was to advance civilization itself." In 2017,
as Donald Trump gained entry into the Oval Office, he embellished and expanded that
mission, describing a nation "assigned by providence to spread democracy and prosperity;
to welcome the stranger; to be brother and sister to the whole human race."
Back in 1997, "a moment of world supremacy unlike any
other," Brooks had worried that his countrymen might not seize the opportunity that was
presenting itself. On the cusp of the twenty-first century, he worried that Americans
had "discarded their pursuit of national greatness in just about every particular." The
times called for a leader like Theodore Roosevelt, who wielded that classic "big stick"
and undertook monster projects like the Panama Canal. Yet Americans were stuck instead
with Bill Clinton, a small-bore triangulator. "We no longer look at history as a
succession of golden ages," Brooks lamented. "And, save in the speeches of politicians
who usually have no clue what they are talking about," America was no longer fulfilling
its "special role as the vanguard of civilization."
By early 2017, with Donald Trump in the White House
and Steve Bannon whispering in his ear, matters had become worse still. Americans had
seemingly abandoned their calling outright. "The Trump and Bannon anschluss has exposed
the hollowness of our patriotism," wrote Brooks, inserting the now-obligatory reference
to Nazi Germany. The November 2016 presidential election had "exposed how attenuated our
vision of national greatness has become and how easy it was for Trump and Bannon to
replace a youthful vision of American greatness with a reactionary, alien one." That
vision now threatens to leave America as "just another nation, hunkered down in a
fearful world."
What exactly happened between 1997 and 2017, you might
ask? What occurred during that "moment of world supremacy" to reduce the United States
from a nation summoned to redeem humankind to one hunkered down in fear?
Trust Brooks to have at hand a brow-furrowing
explanation. The fault, he explains, lies with an "educational system that doesn't teach
civilizational history or real American history but instead a shapeless
multiculturalism," as well as with "an intellectual culture that can't imagine
providence." Brooks blames "people on the left who are uncomfortable with patriotism and
people on the right who are uncomfortable with the federal government that is necessary
to lead our project."
An America that no longer believes in itself-that's
the problem. In effect, Brooks revises Norma Desmond's
famous
complaint
about the movies, now repurposed to
diagnose an ailing nation: it's the politics that got small.
Nowhere does he consider the possibility that his
formula for "national greatness" just might be so much hooey. Between 1997 and 2017,
after all, egged on by people like David Brooks, Americans took a stab at "greatness,"
with the execrable Donald Trump now numbering among the eventual results.
Invading Greatness
Say what you will about the shortcomings of the
American educational system and the country's intellectual culture, they had far less to
do with creating Trump than did popular revulsion prompted by specific policies that
Brooks, among others, enthusiastically promoted. Not that he is inclined to tally up the
consequences. Only as a sort of postscript to his litany of contemporary American
ailments does he refer even in passing to what he calls the "humiliations of Iraq."
A great phrase, that. Yet much like, say, the "tragedy
of Vietnam" or the "crisis of Watergate," it conceals more than it reveals. Here, in
short, is a succinct historical reference that cries out for further explanation. It
bursts at the seams with implications demanding to be unpacked, weighed, and
scrutinized. Brooks shrugs off Iraq as a minor embarrassment, the equivalent of having
shown up at a dinner party wearing the wrong clothes.
Under the circumstances, it's easy to forget that,
back in 2003, he and other members of the Church of America the Redeemer
devoutly
supported
the invasion of Iraq. They welcomed
war. They urged it. They did so not because Saddam Hussein was uniquely evil-although he
was evil enough-but because they saw in such a war the means for the United States to
accomplish its salvific mission. Toppling Saddam and transforming Iraq would provide the
mechanism for affirming and renewing America's "national greatness."
Anyone daring to disagree with that proposition they
denounced as craven or cowardly. Writing at the time, Brooks
disparaged
those opposing the war as mere "marchers." They were effete, pretentious, ineffective,
and absurd. "These people are always in the streets with their banners and puppets. They
march against the IMF and World Bank one day, and against whatever war happens to be
going on the next They just march against."
Perhaps space constraints did not permit Brooks in his
recent column to spell out the "humiliations" that resulted and that even today continue
to accumulate. Here in any event is a brief inventory of what that euphemism conceals:
thousands
of Americans needlessly killed; tens of thousands grievously
wounded
in body or spirit;
trillions
of dollars
wasted
;
millions of Iraqis
dead,
injured, or
displaced
;
this nation's moral standing compromised by its resort to torture,
kidnapping
,
assassination, and other perversions; a region thrown into chaos and threatened by
radical terrorist entities like the Islamic State that U.S. military actions helped
foster. And now, if only as an oblique second-order bonus, we have Donald Trump's
elevation to the presidency to boot.
In refusing to reckon with the results of the war he
once so ardently endorsed, Brooks is hardly alone. Members of the Church of America the
Redeemer, Democrats and Republicans alike, are demonstrably incapable of rendering an
honest accounting of what their missionary efforts have yielded.
Brooks belongs, or once did, to the Church's
neoconservative branch. But liberals such as Bill Clinton, along with his secretary of
state Madeleine Albright, were congregants in good standing, as were
Barack
Obama
and his secretary of state
Hillary
Clinton
. So, too, are putative conservatives
like Senators
John
McCain
,
Ted Cruz
, and
Marco Rubio
,
all of them subscribing to the belief in the singularity and indispensability of the
United States as the chief engine of history, now and forever.
Back in April 2003, confident that the fall of Baghdad
had ended the Iraq War, Brooks predicted that "no day will come when the enemies of this
endeavor turn around and say, 'We were wrong. Bush was right.'" Rather than admitting
error, he continued, the war's opponents "will just extend their forebodings into a more
distant future."
Yet it is the war's proponents who, in the intervening
years, have choked on admitting that they were wrong. Or when making such an admission,
as did both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton while running for president, they write it
off as an aberration, a momentary lapse in judgment of no particular significance, like
having guessed wrong on a TV quiz show.
Rather than requiring acts of contrition, the Church
of America the Redeemer has long promulgated a doctrine of self-forgiveness, freely
available to all adherents all the time. "You think our country's so innocent?" the
nation's 45th president recently
barked
at a TV
host who had the temerity to ask how he could have kind words for the likes of Russian
President Vladimir Putin. Observers professed shock that a sitting president would
openly question American innocence.
In fact, Trump's response and the
kerfuffle
that
ensued both missed the point. No serious person believes that the United States is
"innocent." Worshipers in the Church of America the Redeemer do firmly believe, however,
that America's transgressions, unlike those of other countries, don't count against it.
Once committed, such sins are simply to be set aside and then expunged, a process that
allows American politicians and pundits to condemn a "killer" like Putin with a
perfectly clear conscience while demanding that Donald Trump do the same.
What the Russian president has done in Crimea,
Ukraine, and Syria qualifies as criminal. What American presidents have done in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Libya qualifies as incidental and, above all, beside the point.
Rather than confronting the havoc and bloodshed to
which the United States has contributed, those who worship in the Church of America the
Redeemer keep their eyes fixed on the far horizon and the work still to be done in
aligning the world with American expectations. At least they would, were it not for the
arrival at center stage of a manifestly false prophet who, in promising to "make America
great again," inverts all that "national greatness" is meant to signify.
For Brooks and his fellow believers, the call to
"greatness" emanates from faraway precincts-in the Middle East, East Asia, and Eastern
Europe. For Trump, the key to "greatness" lies in keeping faraway places and the people
who live there as faraway as possible. Brooks et al. see a world that needs saving and
believe that it's America's calling to do just that. In Trump's view, saving others is
not a peculiarly American responsibility. Events beyond our borders matter only to the
extent that they affect America's well-being. Trump worships in the Church of America
First, or at least pretends to do so in order to impress his followers.
That Donald Trump inhabits a universe of his own
devising, constructed of carefully arranged alt-facts, is no doubt the case. Yet, in
truth, much the same can be said of David Brooks and others sharing his view of a
country providentially charged to serve as the "successor to Jerusalem, Athens, and
Rome." In fact, this conception of America's purpose expresses not the intent of
providence, which is inherently ambiguous, but their own arrogance and conceit. Out of
that conceit comes much mischief. And in the wake of mischief come charlatans like
Donald Trump.
Michael Gerson
complains
about the "abandonment" of "American exceptionalism":
During the Barack Obama years, the United States retreated from internationalism
in practice. At first, this may have been a reaction against George W. Bush's foreign
policy. But Obama's tendency became a habit, and the habit hardened into a
conviction. He put consistent emphasis on the risks of action and the limits of
American power.
One of the more tedious arguments from hawks over the last eight years is that the
U.S. "retreated" under Obama. This was always false, and there was no real "retreat"
from the world. Nonetheless, the lie became a habit and it has since hardened into
conventional D.C. wisdom. Obama didn't "retreat" from internationalism, but the purpose
in promoting this falsehood was to identify internationalism with extremely meddlesome
interventionism and to treat everything else as the rejection of internationalism. This
nonsense made for a somewhat useful talking point so long as hawks didn't get too
specific about what they meant, but when forced to describe what Obama's "retreat" was
they had to acknowledge that they meant that he didn't start or escalate enough wars to
their satisfaction. According to them, Obama's big failing is that he didn't involve the
U.S. enough in the killing of Syrians. To put it mildly, that is an odd understanding of
what internationalism means.
The abuse of the concept of "American exceptionalism" has been similar. Once again,
hawks insisted that Obama didn't believe in it, misrepresented his words to shore up
their garbage argument, and then repeated the lie for years until it became automatic.
In the process, they ended up defining "American exceptionalism" so narrowly that no one
except advocates for a very aggressive foreign policy could qualify as supporters.
Gerson's complaint that Obama emphasized risks and costs of direct military action in
Syria reflects this. If a president doesn't use American power to inflict death and
destruction somewhere overseas, or if he even pays closer attention to what it will cost
the U.S. to do so, Gerson thinks that amounts to an "abandonment" of what makes America
unique. That's profoundly warped, but unfortunately it is what passes for "idealism" in
foreign policy commentary these days.
6 Responses to 'American Exceptionalism' and Our Warped Foreign
Policy 'Idealists'
If one was born between about 1940 and 1965, as most of our political,
military, and business leaders were, one came of age in a world where the
United States was the predominant power in almost every sphere and, it seemed,
always had been. Being an American meant being a citizen of the most important
country in the world and being an American leader in any field must have been a
heady feeling. Seeing this preeminence fade requires explanation and, as for
any major change, those who don't like what is happening blame their political
opponents. Since there is no shortage of American exceptionalism across the
spectrum of American political opinion the attempts to affix blame occur in a
target rich environment.
A less satisfactory (but maybe more helpful in the long run) way to think
about having to share the space at the top is to step back a bit and look at
the 20th century, particularly the last half, as a disinterested observer
might. Prior to WWII such an observer wouldn't have said the US was more
advanced than the UK, France, or Germany. Then came the war and every economy
with the potential to compete effectively with the US was nearly destroyed, not
only in Europe but the in the Soviet Union, China, and Japan, infrastructure
was wrecked and the work force needed to repair the damage was decimated. By
contrast, the industrial capacity of the US was expanded and modernized by the
war, our infrastructure was undamaged and our casualties were relatively light.
In the race for postwar 20th century dominance we had an insurmountable head
start.
American exceptionalists mostly ignore our head start, preferring the idea
that we rose to the top in a struggle with equals and won because we are, well,
exceptional. The problem with that attitude is that it leads too easily to the
conclusion that our fall is due to something Clinton or Bush 43 or Obama did or
didn't do and can be reversed by some sort of foreign intervention rather than
doing the less glamorous and much harder work of repairing American society. We
have the resources and talent to stay at the top, but hawkish foreign
adventures and populist scare tactics and self pity won't do the trick.
Gerson, Boot, Krauthammer, Kristol, miscellaneous malefactors surnamed "Kagan"
all evidence of the ill effects of contemporary consequence-free society, in
which adult delinquents keep their jobs and status despite overwhelming
evidence of bad judgment and/or bad faith.
If we held elite
pseudo-meritocrats to the same minimal standard as corporations and elected
officials they would have been out of business a long time ago.
This is exactly what Hillary and those around her were promising.
It is one big part of why she was rejected, to the shock and surprise of those
who believed their own consensus.
Many American voters figured that out, even without the "help" of pundits
inside the Beltway.
@Bacon
This is extraordinarily important context, thank you for it.
Also worth noting, America benefited from the very high tax rates (compared
to now) that were in place for the war effort – so that as commerce recommenced
and incomes rose the government had the money to invest in infrastructure,
education, the arts, etc. The GI Bill being a prime example.
This created a virtuous cycle, at least initially, where American prosperity
could be reinvested into the American commons. Thus increasing American
prosperity.
Despite vehement arguments about how lower and lower taxes are necessary for
American prosperity, the postwar boom makes the opposite argument.
Iraq war supporter Gerson who led about errr. was wrong about Saddam's nuclear
threat doesn't concede the US played its cards wrong and exhausted itself in
Iraq, leading to Obama's reluctance to gamble that the exhaustion could be
reversed elsewhere, Putin saving him from his worst temptation in his weapons
deal with Assad.
I myself find the political control of The Lobby as depicted
by Mearsheimer and Walt strikingly "exceptional" in world history as applied to
a powerful nation.
"A less satisfactory (but maybe more helpful in the long run) way to think
about having to share the space at the top is to step back a bit and look at
the 20th century, particularly the last half, as a disinterested observer
might."
In doing so. I have to challenge the idea that the Us has yet to
share the top spot with anyone. We dominate in nearly every major aspect the
global landscape. Our ability to exert massive force of men, materials,
services and firepower still makes us the most important state on the planet.
We have profound and deep issues economically, still no country is able to
match the impact of US capital markets.
We have the most powerful aide services on the globe. Whether said charities
re by government, church or private entities, no country on the planet does
more in more places with the immediacy of the US.
___________________
No we did not have head start. We are just over 200 years old. What we have
had is vibrancy, youth, ambition, aggression, will, and unnerving self
confidence of can do and will do. And we happen to live on a continent that
could for practical purposes sustain the population for more than a thousand
years if managed wisely. All of the above is what makes the US exceptional. Not
to mention that in that short life we have not been plague with the massive
wars within our borders that cripple progress. Our colonial reach has been
prudent compared to the other major powers. So that even failures have had
nominal impact. I think that may be on the wane. But that wane is is not so
monumental so as to topple the country.
What should be of immense caution is to advocate or justify needless
adventures in the cause of that exceptionalism. Our exceptionalism need not rob
others of their ability and responsibility to act on the world stage. Such
behavior would bleed our exceptional nature and usefulness faster than would be
prudently healthy.
"... *American style fascism. Spain and Italy still had a royal family under Franco and Mussilini, and in much the same way, the U.S. will always have elections. The national pride aspects will still reflect the host country at a level. ..."
"... Take the "Pussy Riot" outrage. Yes, we ignore our pals in Riyadh, but DC rallied to the side of a group that trespassed and damaged a state museum. Freedom of speech was the rallying cry, and of course, "Pussy Riot" disappeared from the National discussion when the elites saw the actual video. The propaganda has to focus around American values. ..."
"... Pussy Rioters served less time than US Terrorists serve waiting to be dismissed without charge. ..."
"... Regardless, US anti-ISIS operations in Iraq/Syria amount to around $30 million a day, a tiny fraction of the several hundred million daily cost of the decade long occupation of Iraq. Until a united Iraqi political structure solidifies, the US is well positioned to continue grinding away at the ISIS threat for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... Occupation was a $2 trillion disaster but the long game is stability and access to $20-30 trillion in oil, gas, and development. Obama has been consistent in his views that American 'ownership' of the Iraqi problem is a red-herring. Iraqis must rule themselves, and nothing forces divisive political groups together faster than the prospect of mutual annihilation. This will entail hard choices by all sides, border may be redrawn. However, Obama could yet pull a rabbit out of this hat. ..."
"... The US supports various "moderate" jihadi groups in Syria fighting against the Syrian government which, of course, is the main opponent of ISIS in Syria. ..."
"... How on earth does wearing down the Syrian government and effectively helping ISIS in Syria translate to "grinding down" ISIS in Iraq? Seems to me, if defeating ISIS is the main goal, supporting Syria would be the response. ..."
"... The neocon reapproachment with saudi arabia was the first part of this sunni islamist attack on every other faith of the native people of the me. ..."
"... I would love to know what Andrew Bacevitch thinks of Michael Glennon's little book "National Security and Double Government." ..."
"... I would say that defense industry sales and profits trump everything else- in a corporatocracy nothing else could be as important. ..."
"... If destroying the world means record profits, well then it is their fiduciary duty to do so. ..."
"... A hidden point: The American Imperial system is creating it's own enemies as it goes. When will it create an enemy who is a serious threat, say, someone who can shut down or take over The Kingdom and it's resources? ..."
"... Right now, the lunatics in DC are running the asylum. ..."
"... I try very hard not to be more cynical than others on NC, debating the fine points of foreign policy or banking reform or election strategy, but the fact-checker in my head keeps getting in the way. That checker tells me that the right answer for each of those boils down to one thing: filthy lucre. ..."
"... We do what we do, whether it is in Iraq or Wall St or Iowa because of one thing: there are a few billionaires who want another zero on their bank balances, and they could care less whether people starve or die or if the planet as a whole just chokes itself to death as a result. ..."
"... Colonel, now Professsor, Andrew Bacevich again points to D.C.'s collective security delusions, using a recent TV discussion about ISIS with three D.C. insiders. Leon Panetta (former Defense Secretary and CIA Director) expresses the insanity most clearly: "Our national security interests are involved; otherwise, why would we be over there in the first place?" This is inverted logic, which Bacevich rightly calls "madness lurking just beneath the surface." ..."
"... The principle threat to the nation is our disasterous policy of "internationalism", which inevitably puts us into the position of intervention - pouring blood and treasure into doubtful causes. ..."
No change needed: dear leader fast track defender and exporter of "American corporate interests"
[which latter now write the laws elected reps used to write] is now an un-elected entity and knows
no term limits.
*American style fascism. Spain and Italy still had a royal family under Franco and Mussilini,
and in much the same way, the U.S. will always have elections. The national pride aspects will
still reflect the host country at a level.
Take the "Pussy Riot" outrage. Yes, we ignore our pals in Riyadh, but DC rallied to the
side of a group that trespassed and damaged a state museum. Freedom of speech was the rallying
cry, and of course, "Pussy Riot" disappeared from the National discussion when the elites saw
the actual video. The propaganda has to focus around American values.
or that Russian culture (Orthodox Church) is deeply embedded in its relatively conservative
population. (Most Russians were outraged at the desecration.) That's why Putin came down hard
on the P-Riot. (Just like US courts come down hard on Terrists.)
I have Russian emigre' friends (Millienials) who think P-Riot is off the deep end.
On the other hand . The Kurds (purported good guys – secular, progressive, inclusive, oil rich)
are growing stronger every day. ISIS continues weakening the Assad regime (which is still supported
by Russia and Iran at great cost) – but now controls little more than a cluster of towns near
the coast and could lose Damascus altogether in the coming months. Iran is a wild card, do they
double-down in Iraq/Syria, or make a nuclear deal to reap billions on oil exports?
Regardless, US anti-ISIS operations in Iraq/Syria amount to around $30 million a day, a
tiny fraction of the several hundred million daily cost of the decade long occupation of Iraq.
Until a united Iraqi political structure solidifies, the US is well positioned to continue grinding
away at the ISIS threat for the foreseeable future.
Occupation was a $2 trillion disaster but the long game is stability and access to $20-30
trillion in oil, gas, and development. Obama has been consistent in his views that American 'ownership'
of the Iraqi problem is a red-herring. Iraqis must rule themselves, and nothing forces divisive
political groups together faster than the prospect of mutual annihilation. This will entail hard
choices by all sides, border may be redrawn. However, Obama could yet pull a rabbit out of this
hat.
Couple of problems: 1) what evidence do you have that Iraq can be salvaged as a unified state?
2) why, given the reality of global climate change, would we ever want that oil and gas extracted?
3) please provide a map of this shrunken territory you claim is all that ISIS controls today–have
they lost Ramadi yet? 4) ISIS is a creature of the Saudis and the Turks–how do they fit in all
this? 5) Why are the Israelis so conspicuously leaving ISIS alone while continuing intermittent
attacks against the duly constituted government of Syria?
Well, no one probably knows what's going to happen in Iraq, so many pieces are in play. What
is known, Assad is growing weaker, Syria is disintegrating, huge parts of Iraq are lawless without
governance. So much depends on a nuclear deal with Iran, political consensus among Iraqi political
groups ect the next 6 months will point to which direction things will move.
I checked. There have been 18 Friedman units since the term was used, so I guess this is the
19th. Friedman has been using "six month" intervals since November 03.
You're right. The term was coined in '06 but it was '03 that Friedman actually first said the
next six months were critical and it makes more sense to count from there. So 11 and a half years
or 23 FUs.
Has anyone yet been able to substantiate the gazillions that Iran is supposedly spending on
a campaign to destabilize Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq? {Hey, and why not throw in destabilizing
Greece, too?}
The US supports various "moderate" jihadi groups in Syria fighting against the Syrian government
which, of course, is the main opponent of ISIS in Syria.
How on earth does wearing down the Syrian government and effectively helping ISIS in Syria
translate to "grinding down" ISIS in Iraq? Seems to me, if defeating ISIS is the main goal, supporting
Syria would be the response.
I'm not sure at all that Russia and Iran are anywhere close to giving up on Syria either, particularly
Russia with its Syrian naval base.
1. The kurds are not a monolith. There is the secular progressive marxist YPG in Syria, and
then the Barzani one clan state of Kurdistan. The YPG have been baring the brunt of the fighting
against daaesh.
2. The islamist advances in syria only come because of the supply of thousands of anti tank
weapons from the us and saudi. Along with air cover and artillery screens on the israeli border
and turkish border. If this support would cut off, they would again fail.
3. The us wrote the iraqi constitution to split it into ethnic statelets. The us set up the
iraqi military to be ineffectual. Everything here is going according to plan.
The neocon reapproachment with saudi arabia was the first part of this sunni islamist attack
on every other faith of the native people of the me. A human presence in washington could
end this very quickly.
There are at least two additional elements to the deeper consensus being affirmed by the speakers.
In addition to (1) ISIS is existential threat to US; (2) US must 'own' the problem; and, (3) 'ownership/leadership'
must build around military might is this pair:
A. Profits accruing to private sector military contractors are both sacrosanct and justified
in light of free market superiority; and,
B. The government/military/political establishment (e.g. these three speakers) cannot afford
democratic practices such as critical thinking and debates across all three of Hallin's spheres
(instead of just conventional wisdom) because that would undermine - be 'inefficient' – respecting
the other elements of this consensus.
I would put oil/gas right beside the defense industry in this case the U.S. isn't pushing all
of its chips into the overthrow of the Assad regime for nothing Israel (and its U.S.-based partner,
Noble Energy) needs to get the natural gas from the Levantine Basin to the Europe market somehow,
and the ideal solution is to construct a pipeline across Syria but that can't happen until Assad
is out and a "friendly" regime is put in place.
We all know that this is not going to end well for the Middle East, and for America.
A hidden point: The American Imperial system is creating it's own enemies as it goes. When
will it create an enemy who is a serious threat, say, someone who can shut down or take over The
Kingdom and it's resources?
There's the real danger. We are forcing an evolution of Islamist militancy. Each time, the
survivors of the current battle get more efficient.
Good post with good info. All I can say is: eh? what else is new? Sending tanks to Iraq, are
we now (again)? CHA CHING!!!!! What's good for the MIC is good for the crooks, thieves and liars
in Washington DC.
Why if ISIS didn't exist, it's almost like the CIA would have to recruit, arm, train and fund
a similar group. Oh wait .
I try very hard not to be more cynical than others on NC, debating the fine points of foreign
policy or banking reform or election strategy, but the fact-checker in my head keeps getting in
the way. That checker tells me that the right answer for each of those boils down to one thing:
filthy lucre.
We do what we do, whether it is in Iraq or Wall St or Iowa because of one thing: there
are a few billionaires who want another zero on their bank balances, and they could care less
whether people starve or die or if the planet as a whole just chokes itself to death as a result.
I should stop posting, it's not as though I want to see the the debates stop, and showing up
and farting at the dinner party is such bad form. But I guess I hope people will ponder whether
we really just have a money problem, and all of our other problems devolve from it.
Maybe the best thing at this point is to tacitly acknowledge that Iran is best positioned to
deal with ISIS and let them do it. This also entails accepting the reality of Iran's growing hegemony
in the region. And that this is the price of having acted like such bad asses in taking out Saddam,
only to get our pants pulled down in the aftermath.
Colonel, now Professsor, Andrew Bacevich again points to D.C.'s collective security delusions,
using a recent TV discussion about ISIS with three D.C. insiders. Leon Panetta (former Defense
Secretary and CIA Director) expresses the insanity most clearly: "Our national security interests
are involved; otherwise, why would we be over there in the first place?" This is inverted logic,
which Bacevich rightly calls "madness lurking just beneath the surface."
Panetta also most clearly expresses (3 times, every time he opens his mouth) the D.C. doctrine
of the "threat to our homeland," which is now ISIS in the Middle East, replacing al-Qaida. Bacevich
says: "Peer out of the rabbit hole and the sheer lunacy quickly becomes apparent." Michele Flournoy
reinforces Panetta by confirming that ISIS " is the new jihad." General Zinni reinforces the message
by saying a stable Middle East is in "our national interest," and that trouble there can quickly
"metastasize."
Bacevich cannot do much with these three "smirking cats, ill-mannered caterpillars, and Mock
Turtles" (though he does not identify which is which!), and he evidently was dissatisfied with
his own performance, hence his subsequent excellent article republished here.
Yet I wish Bacevich would focus on the main items of lunatic thinking, which is that ISIS is
a "threat to the U.S. homeland," and that our merely being over there is proof that our national
security interests are involved. We do not hear the leaders of European nations talking like this,
though they are closer to the Middle East. We do not hear the Chinese or the Indians talking like
this, though they are heavily reliant of buying oil in world markets. We do not hear anyone else
talking like this, and yet the United States is the safest country in the world, geographically,
yet it constantly talks as if it faces imminent threat.
The principle threat to the nation is our disasterous policy of "internationalism", which
inevitably puts us into the position of intervention - pouring blood and treasure into doubtful
causes.
The Chinese have meanwhile steadily grown their economic and political influence around the
world without ever firing a single shot. Unlike us, they will trade with any country that trades
in peace with them.
Which strategy does it seem more likely will win in the long term?
Authors outlined important reasons of the inevitability of the dominance of chicken hawks and jingoistic
foreign policy in the USA political establishment:
.
"...Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous
domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out
over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our
infrastructure crumbles. Democracy
itself has become virtually dysfunctional."
.
"...leading presidential candidates are
tapping neoconservatives like
John Bolton and
Paul Wolfowitz
- who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders
seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place.
War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned."
.
"...A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives
like former Vice President
Dick Cheney and
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
John McCain.
"
.
"...But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" and
"un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning
voices."
.
"...The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia
into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi
from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions
thousands of miles from its borders."
.
"...The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson estimated that the U.S. has some 800 bases worldwide,
about the same as the British Empire had at its height in 1895.
. The United States has long relied on a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans have
been at war almost continuously since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were major undertakings:
Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya. Some were quick "smash and
grabs" like Panama and Grenada. Others are "shadow wars" waged by Special Forces, armed drones, and
local proxies. If one defines the term "war" as the application of organized violence, the U.S. has
engaged in close to 80 wars since 1945."
.
"...The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security
state to levels that many dictators would envy. The
Senate torture report, most
of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus
that runs
the
most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised."
.
"...the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. The 1979 "Carter
Doctrine" - a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin America
- put that strategy in blunt terms vis-à-vis the Middle East:"
.
"...In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans
agreed
that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37 percent
believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those
numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46
percent opposed it.
.
It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public
into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS,
disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has
ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift
toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy."
Notable quotes:
"... Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our infrastructure crumbles . Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional. ..."
"... leading presidential candidates are tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz - who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned. ..."
"... A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain . ..."
"... But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" and "un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices. ..."
"... The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders. ..."
"... As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic inequality. The poor and working millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are a horrific reminder of how deeply racism - the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth - continues to plague our homeland . ..."
"... The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The Senate torture report , most of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised. ..."
"... the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. ..."
"... In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans agreed that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it. It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy. ..."
U.S. foreign policy is dangerous, undemocratic, and deeply out of sync with real global
challenges. Is continuous war inevitable, or can we change course?
There's something fundamentally wrong with U.S. foreign policy.
Despite glimmers of hope - a tentative
nuclear agreement with Iran, for one, and a long-overdue thaw with Cuba - we're locked into seemingly
irresolvable conflicts in most regions of the world. They range from tensions with nuclear-armed
powers like Russia and China to actual combat operations in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.
Why? Has a state of perpetual warfare and conflict become inescapable? Or are we in a self-replicating
cycle that reflects an inability - or unwillingness - to see the world as it actually is?
The United States is undergoing a historic transition in our relationship to the rest of the world,
but this is neither acknowledged nor reflected in U.S. foreign policy. We still act as if our enormous
military power, imperial alliances, and self-perceived moral superiority empower us to set the terms
of "world order."
While this illusion goes back to the end of World War II, it was the end of the Cold War and collapse
of the Soviet Union that signaled the beginning of a self-proclaimed "American Century." The idea
that the United States had "won" the Cold War and now - as the world's lone superpower - had the
right or responsibility to order the world's affairs led to a series of military adventures. It started
with President Bill Clinton's intervention in the Yugoslav civil war, continued on with George W.
Bush's disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and can still be seen in the Obama administration's
own misadventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and beyond.
In each case, Washington chose war as the answer to enormously complex issues, ignoring the profound
consequences for both foreign and domestic policy. Yet the world is very different from the assumptions
that drive this impulsive interventionism.
It's this disconnect that defines the current crisis.
Acknowledging New Realities
So what is it about the world that requires a change in our outlook? A few observations come to
mind.
First, our preoccupation with conflicts in the Middle East - and to a significant extent,
our tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe and with China in East Asia - distract us from the
most compelling crises that threaten the future of humanity. Climate change and environmental
perils have to be dealt with now and demand an unprecedented level of international collective
action. That also holds for the resurgent danger of nuclear war.
Second, superpower military interventionism and far-flung acts of war have only intensified
conflict, terror, and human suffering. There's no short-term solution - especially by force -
to the deep-seated problems that cause chaos, violence, and misery through much of the world.
Third, while any hope of curbing violence and mitigating the most urgent problems depends
on international cooperation, old and disastrous intrigues over spheres of influence dominate
the behavior of the major powers. Our own relentless pursuit of military advantage on every continent,
including through alliances and proxies like NATO, divides the world into "friend" and "foe" according
to our perceived interests. That inevitably inflames aggressive imperial rivalries and overrides
common interests in the 21st century.
Fourth, while the United States remains a great economic power, economic and political influence
is shifting and giving rise to national and regional centers no longer controlled by U.S.-dominated
global financial structures. Away from Washington, London, and Berlin,
alternative centers of
economic power are taking hold in Beijing, New Delhi, Cape Town, and Brasilia. Independent
formations and alliances are springing up: organizations like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India,
China, and South Africa); the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (representing 2.8 billion people);
the Union of South American Nations; the Latin American trade bloc, Mercosur; and others.
Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous
domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out
over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and
our infrastructure crumbles.
Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional.
Short Memories and Persistent Delusions
But instead of letting these changing circumstances and our repeated military failures give us
pause, our government continues to act as if the United States has the power to dominate and dictate
to the rest of the world.
The responsibility of those who set us on this course fades into background. Indeed, in light
of the ongoing meltdown in the Middle East, leading presidential candidates are
tapping neoconservatives like
John Bolton
and Paul Wolfowitz
- who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders
seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first
place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned.
While the Obama administration has sought, with limited success, to end the major wars it inherited,
our government makes wide use of killer drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and has put troops
back into Iraq to confront the religious fanaticism and brutality of the so-called Islamic State
(ISIS) - itself a direct consequence of the last U.S. invasion of Iraq. Reluctant to find common
ground in the fight against ISIS with designated "foes" like Iran and Syria, Washington clings to
allies like Saudi Arabia, whose leaders are fueling the crisis of religious fanaticism and internecine
barbarity. Elsewhere, the U.S. also continues to give massive support to the Israeli government,
despite its expanding occupation of the West Bank and its horrific recurring assaults on Gaza.
A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives
like former Vice President
Dick Cheney
and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman
John McCain.
Though it's attempted to distance itself from the neocons, the Obama administration adds to tensions
with planned military realignments like the "Asia
pivot" aimed at building up U.S. military forces in Asia to confront China. It's also taken a
more aggressive position than even other NATO partners in fostering a new cold war with Russia.
We seem to have missed the point: There is no such thing as an "American Century." International
order cannot be enforced by a superpower alone. But never mind centuries - if we don't learn to take
our common interests more seriously than those that divide nations and breed the chronic danger of
war, there may well be no tomorrows.
Unexceptionalism
There's a powerful ideological delusion that any movement seeking to change U.S. foreign policy
must confront: that U.S. culture is superior to anything else on the planet. Generally going by the
name of "American exceptionalism," it's the deeply held belief that American politics (and medicine,
technology, education, and so on) are better than those in other countries. Implicit in the belief
is an evangelical urge to impose American ways of doing things on the rest of the world.
Americans, for instance, believe they have the best education system in the world, when in fact
they've dropped from 1st place to 14th place in the number of college graduates.
We've made students of higher education the most indebted section of our population, while falling
to 17th place in international education ratings. According to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation, the average American pays more than twice as much for his or her education than those
in the rest of the world.
Health care is an equally compelling example. In the World Health Organization's ranking of health
care systems in 2000, the United States was ranked 37th. In a more recent
Institute of Medicine report in 2013, the U.S. was ranked the lowest among 17 developed nations
studied.
The old anti-war slogan, "It will be a good day when schools get all the money they need and the
Navy has to hold a bake sale to buy an aircraft carrier" is as appropriate today as it was in the
1960s. We prioritize corporate subsidies, tax cuts for the wealthy, and massive military budgets
over education. The result is that Americans are no longer among the most educated in the world.
But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic"
and "un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning
voices.
The fact that Americans consider their culture or ideology "superior" is hardly unique. But no
other country in the world has the same level of economic and military power to enforce its worldview
on others.
The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia
into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar
Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force
in regions thousands of miles from its borders.
The U.S. currently accounts for anywhere from 45 to 50 percent of the world's military spending.
It has hundreds of overseas bases, ranging from huge sprawling affairs like Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo
and unsinkable aircraft carriers around the islands of Okinawa, Wake, Diego Garcia, and Guam to tiny
bases called "lily
pads" of pre-positioned military supplies. The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson
estimated that the U.S. has some 800 bases worldwide, about the same as the British Empire had at
its height in 1895.
The United States has long relied on a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans
have been at war almost continuously since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were
major undertakings: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya. Some
were quick "smash and grabs" like Panama and Grenada. Others are "shadow wars" waged by Special Forces,
armed drones, and local proxies. If one defines the term "war" as the application of organized
violence, the U.S. has engaged in close to 80 wars since 1945.
The Home Front
The coin of empire comes dear, as the old expression goes.
According Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, the final butcher bill for the Afghanistan
and Iraq wars - including the long-term health problems of veterans - will cost U.S. taxpayers around
$6 trillion. One can add to that the over $1 trillion the U.S. spends each year on defense-related
items. The "official" defense budget of some half a trillion dollars doesn't include such items as
nuclear weapons, veterans' benefits or retirement, the CIA and Homeland Security, nor the billions
a year in interest we'll be paying on the debt from the Afghan-Iraq wars. By 2013 the U.S. had already
paid out $316 billion
in interest.
The domestic collateral damage from that set of priorities is numbing.
We spend more on our "official" military budget than we do on Medicare, Medicaid, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development combined. Since 9/11,
we've
spent $70 million an hour on "security" compared to $62 million an hour on all domestic programs.
As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic
inequality. The poor and working millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic
problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are a horrific reminder of how deeply
racism - the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth -
continues to plague our homeland.
The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and
security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The
Senate torture report, most
of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus
that runs
the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised.
Bombs and Business
President Calvin Coolidge was said to have remarked that "the business of America is business."
Unsurprisingly, U.S. corporate interests play a major role in American foreign policy.
Out of the top 10 international arms producers, eight are American. The arms industry spends millions
lobbying Congress and state legislatures, and it defends its turf with an efficiency and vigor that
its products don't always emulate on the battlefield. The F-35 fighter-bomber, for example - the
most expensive weapons system in U.S. history - will cost $1.5 trillion and doesn't work. It's over
budget, dangerous to fly, and riddled with defects. And yet few lawmakers dare challenge the powerful
corporations who have shoved this lemon down our throats.
Corporate interests are woven into the fabric of long-term U.S. strategic interests and goals.
Both combine to try to control energy supplies, command strategic choke points through which oil
and gas supplies transit, and ensure access to markets.
Many of these goals can be achieved with standard diplomacy or economic pressure, but the
U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. The 1979 "Carter
Doctrine" - a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin
America - put that strategy in blunt terms vis-à-vis the Middle East:
"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, and such an assault will be repelled
by any means necessary, including military force."
It's no less true in East Asia. The U.S. will certainly engage in peaceful economic competition
with China. But if push comes to shove, the Third, Fifth, and Seventh fleets will back up the interests
of Washington and its allies - Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Australia.
Trying to change the course of American foreign policy is not only essential for reducing international
tensions. It's critically important to shift the enormous wealth we expend in war and weapons toward
alleviating growing inequality and social crises at home.
As long as competition for markets and accumulation of capital characterize modern society, nations
will vie for spheres of influence, and antagonistic interests will be a fundamental feature of international
relations. Chauvinist reaction to incursions real or imagined - and the impulse to respond by military
means - is characteristic to some degree of every significant nation-state. Yet the more that some
governments, including our own, become subordinate to oligarchic control, the greater is the peril.
Finding the Common Interest
These, however, are not the only factors that will shape the future.
There is nothing inevitable that rules out a significant change of direction, even if the demise
or transformation of a capitalistic system of greed and exploitation is not at hand. The potential
for change, especially in U.S. foreign policy, resides in how social movements here and abroad respond
to the undeniable reality of: 1) the chronic failure, massive costs, and danger inherent in "American
Century" exceptionalism; and 2) the urgency of international efforts to respond to climate change.
There is, as well, the necessity to respond to health and natural disasters aggravated by poverty,
to rising messianic violence, and above all, to prevent a descent into war. This includes not only
the danger of a clash between the major nuclear powers, but between regional powers. A nuclear exchange
between Pakistan and India, for example, would affect the whole world.
Without underestimating the self-interest of forces that thrive on gambling with the future of
humanity, historic experience and current reality elevate a powerful common interest in peace and
survival. The need to change course is not something that can be recognized on only one side of an
ideological divide. Nor does that recognition depend on national, ethnic, or religious identity.
Rather, it demands acknowledging the enormous cost of plunging ahead as everything falls apart around
us.
After the latest U.S. midterm elections, the political outlook is certainly bleak. But experience
shows that elections, important as they are, are not necessarily indicators of when and how significant
change can come about in matters of policy. On issues of civil rights and social equality, advances
have occurred because a dedicated and persistent minority movement helped change public opinion in
a way the political establishment could not defy.
The Vietnam War, for example, came to an end, despite the stubbornness of Democratic and Republican
administrations, when a stalemate on the battlefield and growing international and domestic opposition
could no longer be denied. Significant changes can come about even as the basic character of society
is retained. Massive resistance and rejection of colonialism caused the British Empire and other
colonial powers to adjust to a new reality after World War II. McCarthyism was eventually defeated
in the United States. President Nixon was forced to resign. The use of landmines and cluster bombs
has been greatly restricted because of the opposition of a small band of activists whose initial
efforts were labeled "quixotic."
There are diverse and growing political currents in our country that see the folly and danger
of the course we're on. Many Republicans, Democrats, independents, and libertarians - and much of
the public - are beginning to say "enough" to war and military intervention all over the globe, and
the folly of basing foreign policy on dividing countries into "friend or foe."
This is not to be Pollyannaish about anti-war sentiment, or how quickly people can be stampeded
into supporting the use of force. In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans
agreed
that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37
percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State
began, those
numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force,
46 percent opposed it.
It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public
into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS,
disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it
has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war,
a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy.
Making Space for the Unexpected
Given that there is a need for a new approach, how can American foreign policy be changed?
Foremost, there is the need for a real debate on the thrust of a U.S. foreign policy that chooses
negotiation, diplomacy, and international cooperation over the use of force.
However, as we approach another presidential election, there is as yet no strong voice among the
candidates to challenge U.S. foreign policy. Fear and questionable political calculation keep even
most progressive politicians from daring to dissent as the crisis of foreign policy lurches further
into perpetual militarism and war. That silence of political acquiescence has to be broken.
Nor is it a matter of concern only on the left. There are many Americans - right, left, or neither
- who sense the futility of the course we're on. These voices have to be represented or the election
process will be even more of a sham than we've recently experienced.
One can't predict just what initiatives may take hold, but the recent U.S.-China climate agreement
suggests that necessity can override significant obstacles. That accord is an important step forward,
although a limited bilateral pact
cannot
substitute for an essential international climate treaty. There is a glimmer of hope also in
the U.S.-Russian joint action that
removed
chemical weapons from Syria, and in negotiations with Iran, which continue despite
fierce opposition
from U.S. hawks and the Israeli government. More recently, there is Obama's bold move - long overdue
- to restore diplomatic
relations with Cuba. Despite shifts in political fortunes, the unexpected can happen if there
is a need and strong enough pressure to create an opportunity.
We do not claim to have ready-made solutions to the worsening crisis in international relations.
We are certain that there is much we've missed or underestimated. But if readers agree that U.S.
foreign policy has a national and global impact, and that it is not carried out in the interests
of the majority of the world's people, including our own, then we ask you to join this conversation.
If we are to expand the ability of the people to influence foreign policy, we need to defend democracy,
and encourage dissent and alternative ideas. The threats to the world and to ourselves are so great
that finding common ground trumps any particular interest. We also know that we won't all agree with
each other, and we believe that is as it should be. There are multiple paths to the future. No coalition
around changing foreign policy will be successful if it tells people to conform to any one pattern
of political action.
So how does the call for changing course translate to something politically viable, and how do
we consider the problem of power?
The power to make significant changes in policy ranges from the persistence of peace activists
to the potential influence of the general public. In some circumstances, it becomes possible - as
well as necessary - to make significant changes in the power structure itself.
Greece comes to mind. Greek left organizations came together to form Syriza, the political party
that was successfully elected to power
on a platform of ending austerity. Spain's anti-austerity Podemos Party - now the number-two party
in the country - came out of massive demonstrations in 2011 and was organized from the grassroots
up. We do not argue one approach over the over, but the experiences in both countries demonstrate
that there are multiple paths to generating change.
Certainly progressives and leftists grapple with the problems of power. But progress on issues,
particularly in matters like war and peace and climate change, shouldn't be conceived of as dependent
on first achieving general solutions to the problems of society, however desirable.
... ... ...
Conn Hallinan is a journalist and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. His writings appear
online at Dispatches From
the Edge. Leon Wofsy is a retired biology professor and long-time political activist. His comments
on current affairs appear online at Leon's
OpEd.
"... The final stage of a star, going into stellar death, is the supernova – the core ceases producing energy, and the surrounding layers collapse inward at the loss of pressure. The release of energy as it explodes is a dazzling flare that can outshine a galaxy for a brief time, a few days. Then, burnout; the star becomes a neutron star, or a black hole. ..."
"... In its increasingly erratic behavior, its insistence on its own "specialness" and exceptionalism, its stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality – instead remaining determined to "shape the narrative" and replace it with an alternate and fabricated reality – are we seeing the beginning of core collapse and the onset of burnout? ..."
"... The U.S. workforce has experienced downward pressure on wages and benefits over recent decades. Median and average wages have stagnated for thirty years, while the availability and quality of health insurance and pension benefits have substantially eroded. By contrast, the concentration of wealth at the top of U.S. society has skyrocketed, to levels unseen since the 1920s." ..."
"... "It's fair to say that America has the best cards when you look at other countries around the world. There's no other country you'd rather be than the United States. Nobody can compete with us when we're making the right decisions." ..."
"... The golden age of broad-based economic expansion and opportunity for Americans was the quarter century after World War II. Large parts of the industrial capacity of Europe and Japan had been destroyed in the war. The U.S. manufacturing sector, scaled up for wartime production, was left unscathed and ready to satisfy demand in both domestic and hungry world markets, with purchases in the latter financed in part by the Marshall Plan ..."
"... While the United States continues to be the only military superpower, the economic world has become decidedly multipolar ..."
Out of the blue
and into the black
You pay for this,
but they give you that
And once you're gone,
you can't come back
Neil Young, from "Into The Black"
The final stage of a star, going into stellar death, is the supernova – the core ceases producing
energy, and the surrounding layers collapse inward at the loss of pressure. The release of energy
as it explodes is a dazzling flare that can outshine a galaxy for a brief time, a few days. Then,
burnout; the star becomes a neutron star, or a black hole.
What is happening to the United States of America?
In its increasingly erratic behavior, its insistence on its own "specialness" and exceptionalism,
its stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality – instead remaining determined to "shape the narrative"
and replace it with an alternate and fabricated reality – are we seeing the beginning of core collapse
and the onset of burnout?
All empires eventually collapse upon themselves, what sustains them at their core no longer capable
of projecting power outward as they succumb to overreach and a misplaced belief in their own invincibility.
Is this process already underway?
More and more signs say yes, it is. Not just internationally, where respect for America has
slipped steadily,
but domestically, where Americans themselves gloomily
offer their belief,
in polling results, that the world is getting fed up with the USA throwing its weight around. A Rasmussen
poll released a year ago suggests
only 23 percent of Americans polled believe America is "on the right track". The percentage of
working-age Americans who are part of the U.S. workforce is at its lowest level since 1978, if you
can believe it, with one in every three working-age Americans unemployed. In 2011, American debt
passed
100% of GDP.
"The U.S. workforce has experienced downward pressure on wages and benefits over recent
decades. Median and average wages have stagnated for thirty years, while the availability and
quality of health insurance and pension benefits have substantially eroded. By contrast, the concentration
of wealth at the top of U.S. society has skyrocketed, to levels unseen since the 1920s."
Well, the reference cited earlier suggests President Obama does not know that. Because he says,
"It's fair to say that America has the best cards when you look at other countries around the world.
There's no other country you'd rather be than the United States. Nobody can compete with us when
we're making the right decisions." I suppose that's not exactly a big fat lie, but
it is curious that he would say nobody can compete with America "when we're making the right decisions"
when he is umm the decision-maker for America. Because clearly the "right decisions" have not been
made in America for quite a long time. An IMF working paper entitled ""An
Analysis of U.S. Fiscal and Generational Imbalances: Who Will Pay and How?" forecast that U.S.
government debt would rise above 400% of GDP by 2050, owing heavily to unfunded liabilities such
as Social Security. Despite the fact that economic projections so far out are little more than informed
guesses relying on everything staying the same as it is now, it did not remain for long in the public
domain.
Ms. Polaski, author of the Carnegie document, goes on to say,
"The golden age of broad-based economic expansion and opportunity for Americans was the
quarter century after World War II. Large parts of the industrial capacity of Europe and Japan
had been destroyed in the war. The U.S. manufacturing sector, scaled up for wartime production,
was left unscathed and ready to satisfy demand in both domestic and hungry world markets, with
purchases in the latter financed in part by the Marshall Plan."
Sounds almost like another world war would be just what the doctor ordered as far as a return
to American expansion of influence and a return to prosperity go, doesn't it? Is that why the USA
is pushing Europe so hard to accept further sacrifices to its own economic prosperity – to kick-start
another massive land war in Europe, between NATO and Russia, fought over Ukraine?
In a word, no. Because there is no possibility of a repeat of the golden age of economic expansion
for Americans, at least not based on the same model, because American manufacturing has been outsourced
to a fare-thee-well, and is
moribund in
the land of its birth. Some fast talkers will tell you the death of American manufacturing is
liberal fearmongering, that American manufacturing has had one of its best (pick your window) months
ever – but they are just tap-dancing you past the graveyard, because manufacturing's share of the
American economy had shrunk from 28.5% in its postwar heyday to only 12% by 2010. Doing great in
a sector that has shrunk by more than half is not a gain.
America is making big with the bellicose war talk, strutting and pounding its chest and blabbering
crazy talk about arming Ukraine as its proxy against Russia. But it is not only Russia which is the
issue – a developing threat is the lifting of sanctions on Iran. It can hardly have escaped notice
(I know some of my commenters have highlighted it) that Iran's acceptance back into the western fold,
while it might be a welcome boon to a Europe urgently seeking gas supplies that do not originate
in Russia, is a source of increasing alarm to America's conjoined little brother, Israel. In a moment
of unintentional comedy last year, Israel's always-entertaining leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, actually
warned world
leaders not to ease up on Iran in the hope of winning its cooperation in the fight against Islamic
State (or ISIS or ISIL or whatever the acronym-of-the-moment is) because Iran was fighting against
IS "out of their own interest"!!! Said the leader of the wealthy country that benefits from
an annual $3.1 Billion in foreign aid from the USA. More ominous was the
open
letter to the Republic of Iran from 47 Republican senators, warning Iran's leaders that any agreement
negotiated between Obama and Iran without Congressional approval would be considered merely an executive
agreement that would cease its effect as soon as Obama is out of office. Mild-mannered lunatic Lindsey
Graham went even further off the map, using a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to press U.S.
SecDef Ashton Carter on
who
would win a war between the United States and Iran. Atlantic Magazine points out that the USA
was sure of winning the war with Iraq, as well, and it did. Sort of. But it cost Trillions with a
capital "T" and thousands of dead Americans, and resulted in what is about as similar to a prosperous
western-oriented market democracy as an igloo is like a brush fire. America cannot afford any more
victories like that one, yet it seems uncommonly eager to fight everyone on the planet who will not
kneel to it and let it be the boss.
Which brings us to its loyal ally, Europe. American pressure turned off the sale of two MISTRAL
Assault Carriers to Russia by France, and now France is on the hook for about €1.2 Billion and has
a pair of white-elephant warships it will probably sink – as the cheapest option – without their
ever having been delivered to the customer. Paris expects to fund the penalty from €2 Billion Poland
will pay for French helicopters. France will see a return of less than €800 million in compensation
for €2 Billion worth of aircraft sales and will probably have to sink two brand-new warships, all
because of American pressure. And that's on the heels of French fury in 2013, when Snowden's disclosures
revealed the NSA had "collected"
more than 70 million French
phone calls just in one 30-day period. Rising anti-Americanism in Germany is the more disconcerting
– for American policymakers – in that
it is becoming
mainstream. After a half-decade of the most severe austerity budget in Britain since World War
II, Britons have suffered
the worst decline in real wages since Victorian times. That last is not Washington's fault, of
course; but it bodes ill for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the mammoth
free-trade deal Washington is trying to get signed with Europe. British shopkeepers are not going
to be thrilled with the concept of opening their markets to American goods so that Americans can
get richer while British businesses go under because they can't compete.
And they can't; the European Commission – which is fast evolving into a de facto Government Of
Europe – predicts that without comprehensive economic reforms, living standards in the Eurozone will
be lower, relative to those in the USA,
in 2025 than they were in the mid-1960's.
Just ponder that for a moment. Living standards, in Europe, when your children are the workforce,
lower than they were when your parents were the workforce. That's quite an accomplishment, when you
think about it. Now consider that your good friends in Washington want to erode your living standards
further by using you as a pawn in the Great Game against Russia, which Washington must stop at all
costs.
Which brings us full circle back to Washington, and the coming leadership race on the staggering
deathstar America has become. Right now – and I'm well aware things can change quickly in a presidential
election, you only have to say the wrong thing to go from front-runner to done-like-dinner, but just
as a snapshot of the moment – it's a race between BusinessTwit Donald Trump and send-in-the-Army
warhag Hillary Clinton. Just think about that for a minute – the finest America has to offer, its
glittering gladiators in the arena of public service, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. What has
happened to you, America?
Another clue is tucked away in Ms. Polaski's excellent research work on American living standards:
"While the United States continues to be the only military superpower, the economic world has
become decidedly multipolar".
Washington would like to send in the dollar to beat the shit out of all comers, the way it has
become used to doing since Bretton Woods. But it doesn't work any more – Washington is up against
the BRICS now, an economic bloc which numbers nearly half of the world's population, a combined nominal
GDP which is nearly a quarter of the world's total and about $4 Trillion in combined foreign-currency
reserves. As this bloc moves to more comprehensive de-dollarization and conducts more transactions
in its national currencies, the dollar's clout will only weaken further. Kicking countries out of
SWIFT, the international electronic hub of worldwide financial transactions, was never really a solution;
the USA did it to Iran, but Iran did not collapse, and European courts twice found the action illegal
on behalf of separate Iranian banks. That notwithstanding, the west could not afford to kick such
a large economic bloc out of SWIFT, or even only one member, because it would lose the capability
to monitor those financial transactions. And the Sino-Russian
international SWIFT alternative is firming up fast. America will learn, to its great sorrow,
that the "petrodollar" without the "petro" is a paper tiger.
Economic warfare is no longer a viable alternative. That leaves the USA's giant military machine.
Elton John might not live long enough to sing "Candle in the Wind" for the United States as global
whip-wielder, but you can nearly see that moment. Just keep in mind the part about blazing up to
be the brightest explosion in the galaxy first.
"... The BRICS want to use oil to "force the US to lose its incredibly powerful role in owning the world's transactional reserve currency." It gives the US a great deal of power of empire that it would not ordinarily have, since the ability to add debt without consequence enables the expenditures to sustain it. ..."
"... Later, after listening to this again, the thought crossed my mind that this advisor might be a double agent using the paranoia of the military to achieve the ends of another. Not for the BRICS, but for the Banks. The greatest beneficiary of a strong dollar, which is a terrible burden to the real economy, is the financial sector. This is why most countries seek to weaken or devalue their currencies to improve their domestic economies as a primary objective. This is not so far-fetched as military efforts to provoke 'regime change' have too often been undertaken to support powerful commercial interests. ..."
"... A typical observation is that the US did indeed overthrow the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. But 'the British needed the money' from the Anglo-Iranian oil company in order to rebuild after WW II. Truman had rejected the notion, but Eisenhower the military veteran and Republic agreed to it. Wilkerson says specifically that Ike was 'the last expert' to hold the office of the Presidency. ..."
Aug 15, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain
"We are imperial, and we are in decline... People are losing confidence in the Empire."
This is the key theme of Larry Wilkerson's presentation. He never really questions whether empire
is good or bad, sustainable or not, and at what costs. At least he does not so in the same manner
as that great analyst of empire Chalmers Johnson.
It is important to understand what people who are in and near positions of power are thinking
if you wish to understand what they are doing, and what they are likely to do. What ought
to be done is another matter.
Wilkerson is a Republican establishment insider who has served for many years in the military
and the State Department. Here he is giving about a 40 minute presentation to the Centre For International
Governance in Canada in 2014.
I find his point of view of things interesting and revealing, even on those points where I may
not agree with his perspective. There also seem to be some internal inconsistencies in this thinking.
But what makes his perspective important is that it represents a mainstream view of many professional
politicians and 'the Establishment' in America. Not the hard right of the Republican party, but much
of what constitutes the recurring political establishment of the US.
As I have discussed here before, I do not particularly care so much if a trading indicator has
a fundamental basis in reality, as long as enough people believe in and act on it. Then it is worth
watching as self-fulfilling prophecy. And the same can be said of political and economic memes.
At minute 48:00 Wilkerson gives a response to a question about the growing US debt and of the
role of the petrodollar in the Empire, and the efforts by others to 'undermine it' by replacing it.
This is his 'greatest fear.'
He speaks about 'a principal advisor to the CIA Futures project' and the National Intelligence
Council (NIC), whose views and veracity of claims are being examined closely by sophisticated assets.
He believes that both Beijing and Moscow are complicit in an attempt to weaken the dollar.
This includes the observation that "gold is being moved in sort of unique ways, concentrated in
secret in unique ways, and capitals are slowly but surely divesting themselves of US Treasuries.
So what you are seeing right now in the supposed strengthening of the dollar is a false impression."
The BRICS want to use oil to "force the US to lose its incredibly powerful role in owning
the world's transactional reserve currency." It gives the US a great deal of power of empire that
it would not ordinarily have, since the ability to add debt without consequence enables the expenditures
to sustain it.
Later, after listening to this again, the thought crossed my mind that this advisor might
be a double agent using the paranoia of the military to achieve the ends of another. Not for
the BRICS, but for the Banks. The greatest beneficiary of a strong dollar, which is a terrible burden
to the real economy, is the financial sector. This is why most countries seek to weaken or devalue
their currencies to improve their domestic economies as a primary objective. This is not so far-fetched
as military efforts to provoke 'regime change' have too often been undertaken to support powerful
commercial interests.
Here is just that particular excerpt of the Q&A and the question of increasing US debt.
I am not sure how much the policy makers and strategists agree with this theory about gold. But
there is no doubt in my mind that they believe and are acting on the theory that oil, and the dollar
control of oil, the so-called petrodollar, is the key to maintaining the empire.
Wilkerson reminds me very much of a political theoretician who I knew at Georgetown University.
He talks about strategic necessities, the many occasions in which the US has used its imperial power
covertly to overthrow or attempt to overthrow governments in Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and the Ukraine.
He tends to ascribe all these actions to selflessness, and American service to the world in maintaining
a balance of power where 'all we ask is a plot of ground to bury our dead.'
A typical observation is that the US did indeed overthrow the democratically elected government
of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. But 'the British needed the money' from the Anglo-Iranian oil company
in order to rebuild after WW II. Truman had rejected the notion, but Eisenhower the military veteran
and Republic agreed to it. Wilkerson says specifically that Ike was 'the last expert' to hold the
office of the Presidency.
This is what is meant by realpolitik. It is all about organizing the world under a 'balance
of power' that is favorable to the Empire and the corporations that have sprung up around it.
As someone with a long background and interest in strategy I am not completely unsympathetic to
these lines of thinking. But like most broadly developed human beings and students of history and
philosophy one can see that the allure of such thinking, without recourse to questions of restraint
and morality and the fig leaf of exceptionalist thinking, is a terrible trap, a Faustian bargain.
It is the rationalization of every nascent tyranny. It is the precursor to the will to pure power
for its own sake.
The challenges of empire now according to Wilkerson are:
Disequilibrium of wealth - 1/1000th of the US owns 50% of its total wealth. The current
economic system implies long term stagnation (I would say stagflation. The situation in the US
is 1929, and in France, 1789. All the gains are going to the top.
BRIC nations are rising and the Empire is in decline, largely because of US strategic miscalculations.
The US is therefore pressing harder towards war in its desperation and desire to maintain the
status quo. And it is dragging a lot of good and honest people into it with our NATO allies
who are dependent on the US for their defense.
There is a strong push towards regional government in the US that may intensify as
global warming and economic developments present new challenges to specific areas. For example,
the water has left the Southwest, and it will not be coming back anytime soon.
This presentation ends about minute 40, and then it is open to questions which is also very interesting.
Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the
College of William Mary, and former Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"... Rep. Alcee Hastings has sponsored a bill to authorize President Trump to attack Iran. ..."
"... Alcee Hastings is better known to the public as a federal judge who was impeached for bribery
and for a series of ethical lapses as a Congressman than for his legislative record. The 2012 Family
Affairs report by the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington found that Hastings paid
his partner, Patricia Williams, $622,000 to serve as his deputy district director from 2007 to 2010,
the largest amount paid to a family member by any Member of Congress in the report. ..."
"... Alcee Hastings's voting record on war and peace issues has been about average for a Democrat.
He voted against the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) on Iraq, and his 79 percent
lifetime Peace Action score is the highest among current House members from Florida, although Alan Grayson's
was higher. ..."
"... In the new Republican-led Congress, with the bombastic and unpredictable Donald Trump in the
White House, Hastings's bill could actually serve as a blank check for war on Iran, and it is carefully
worded to be exactly that. It authorizes the open-ended use of force against Iran with no limits on
the scale or duration of the war. The only sense in which the bill meets the requirements of the War
Powers Act is that it stipulates that it does so. Otherwise it entirely surrenders Congress's constitutional
authority for any decision over war with Iran to the President, requiring only that he report to Congress
on the war once every 60 days. ..."
"... The wording of Hastings's bill perpetuates dangerous myths about the nature of Iran's nuclear
program that have been thoroughly investigated and debunked after decades of intense scrutiny by experts,
from the U.S. intelligence community to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA). ..."
"... As former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei explained in his book, The Age of Deception: Nuclear
Diplomacy in Treacherous Times, the IAEA has never found any real evidence of nuclear weapons research
or development in Iran, any more than in Iraq in 2003, the last time such myths were abused to launch
our country into a devastating and disastrous war. ..."
"... In Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, investigative journalist
Gareth Porter meticulously examined the suspected evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran. He explored
the reality behind every claim and explained how the deep-seated mistrust in U.S.-Iran relations gave
rise to misinterpretations of Iran's scientific research and led Iran to shroud legitimate civilian
research in secrecy. This climate of hostility and dangerous worst-case assumptions even led to the
assassination of four innocent Iranian scientists by alleged Israeli agents. ..."
"... The discredited myth of an Iranian "nuclear weapons program" was perpetuated throughout the
2016 election campaign by candidates of both parties, but Hillary Clinton was particularly strident
in claiming credit for neutralizing Iran's imaginary nuclear weapons program. ..."
"... President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry also reinforced a false narrative that the
"dual-track" approach of Obama's first term, escalating sanctions and threats of war at the same time
as holding diplomatic negotiations, "brought Iran to the table." This was utterly false. Threats and
sanctions served only to undermine diplomacy, strengthen hard-liners on both sides and push Iran into
building 20,000 centrifuges to supply its civilian nuclear program with enriched uranium, as documented
in Trita Parsi's book, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran. ..."
"... When Brazil and Turkey persuaded Iran to accept the terms of an agreement proposed by the U.S.
a few months earlier, the U.S. responded by rejecting its own proposal. By then the main U.S. goal was
to ratchet up sanctions at the U.N., which this diplomatic success would have undermined. ..."
"... Trita Parsi explained that this was only one of many ways in which the two tracks of Obama's
"dual-track" approach were hopelessly at odds with each other. Only once Clinton was replaced by John
Kerry at the State Department did serious diplomacy displace brinksmanship and ever-rising tensions.
..."
"... Rand Paul: If John McCain Were In Charge, U.S. 'Would Be In Perpetual War' "John McCain is
the guy that has advocated for war everywhere." ..."
"... How many wars are enough? ..."
"... That begs the question "What's Rand Paul's definition of perpetual war?" We've been at war
since 2003. There's no end in sight. That seems like "perpetual" to me. Do they need to be bigger wars
or for there to be more of them in order to meet Paul's threshold for perpetual? ..."
"... 'Know neither your enemy nor yourself', is how US got into this predicament. How many places
has the CIA 'organized' to such good effect? Most effectively with Jihadis grown from Afghanistan reorganized
in Syria over nearly 40 years. ..."
"... What are you who calls the 'enemy' sinners when your country out does the 'enemy' in war crime
across the world? ..."
"... I have never seen a ranking federal bureaucrat do something illegal by accident. ..."
"... Or the faux security services who found yellow cake that don't exist found GOP spies that do
not exist. ..."
Exclusive: The Democrats' rush to rebrand themselves as super-hawks is perhaps best illustrated
by the once-dovish Rep. Alcee Hastings proposing stand-by authorization for the President to attack
Iran, reports Nicolas J S Davies.
By Nicolas J S Davies
Rep. Alcee Hastings has sponsored a bill to authorize President Trump to attack Iran.
Hastings reintroduced H J Res 10, the "Authorization of Use of Force Against Iran Resolution"
on Jan. 3, the first day of the new Congress after President Trump's election.
Hastings's bill has come as a shock to constituents and people who have followed his career
as a 13-term Democratic Member of Congress from South Florida. Miami Beach resident Michael Gruener
called Hastings's bill, "extraordinarily dangerous," and asked, "Does Hastings even consider to
whom he is giving this authorization?"
Fritzie Gaccione, the editor of the South Florida Progressive Bulletin noted that Iran is complying
with the 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and expressed amazement that Hastings
has reintroduced this bill at a moment when the stakes are so high and Trump's intentions so unclear.
"How can Hastings hand this opportunity to Trump?" she asked. "Trump shouldn't be trusted with
toy soldiers, let alone the American military."
Speculation by people in South Florida as to why Alcee Hastings has sponsored such a dangerous
bill reflect two general themes. One is that he is paying undue attention to the pro-Israel groups
who raised 10 percent of his coded campaign contributions for the 2016 election. The other is
that, at the age of 80, he seems to be carrying water for the pay-to-play Clinton wing of the
Democratic Party as part of some kind of retirement plan.
Alcee Hastings is better known to the public as a federal judge who was impeached for bribery
and for a series of ethical lapses as a Congressman than for his legislative record. The 2012
Family Affairs report by the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington found that
Hastings paid his partner, Patricia Williams, $622,000 to serve as his deputy district director
from 2007 to 2010, the largest amount paid to a family member by any Member of Congress in the
report.
But Hastings sits in one of the 25 safest Democratic seats in the House and does not seem to
have ever faced a serious challenge from a Democratic primary opponent or a Republican.
Alcee Hastings's voting record on war and peace issues has been about average for a Democrat.
He voted against the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) on Iraq, and his
79 percent lifetime Peace Action score is the highest among current House members from Florida,
although Alan Grayson's was higher.
Hastings voted against the bill to approve the JCPOA or nuclear agreement with Iran and first
introduced his AUMF bill in 2015. With the approval of the JCPOA and Obama's solid commitment
to it, Hastings's bill seemed like a symbolic act that posed little danger – until now.
In the new Republican-led Congress, with the bombastic and unpredictable Donald Trump in
the White House, Hastings's bill could actually serve as a blank check for war on Iran, and it
is carefully worded to be exactly that. It authorizes the open-ended use of force against Iran
with no limits on the scale or duration of the war. The only sense in which the bill meets the
requirements of the War Powers Act is that it stipulates that it does so. Otherwise it entirely
surrenders Congress's constitutional authority for any decision over war with Iran to the President,
requiring only that he report to Congress on the war once every 60 days.
Dangerous Myths
The wording of Hastings's bill perpetuates dangerous myths about the nature of Iran's nuclear
program that have been thoroughly investigated and debunked after decades of intense scrutiny
by experts, from the U.S. intelligence community to the International Atomic Energy Association
(IAEA).
As former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei explained in his book, The Age of Deception:
Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times, the IAEA has never found any real evidence of nuclear
weapons research or development in Iran, any more than in Iraq in 2003, the last time such myths
were abused to launch our country into a devastating and disastrous war.
In Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, investigative journalist
Gareth Porter meticulously examined the suspected evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran.
He explored the reality behind every claim and explained how the deep-seated mistrust in U.S.-Iran
relations gave rise to misinterpretations of Iran's scientific research and led Iran to shroud
legitimate civilian research in secrecy. This climate of hostility and dangerous worst-case assumptions
even led to the assassination of four innocent Iranian scientists by alleged Israeli agents.
The discredited myth of an Iranian "nuclear weapons program" was perpetuated throughout
the 2016 election campaign by candidates of both parties, but Hillary Clinton was particularly
strident in claiming credit for neutralizing Iran's imaginary nuclear weapons program.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry also reinforced a false narrative that
the "dual-track" approach of Obama's first term, escalating sanctions and threats of war at the
same time as holding diplomatic negotiations, "brought Iran to the table." This was utterly false.
Threats and sanctions served only to undermine diplomacy, strengthen hard-liners on both sides
and push Iran into building 20,000 centrifuges to supply its civilian nuclear program with enriched
uranium, as documented in Trita Parsi's book, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With
Iran.
A former hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran who rose to be a senior officer on the Iran
desk at the State Department told Parsi that the main obstacle to diplomacy with Iran during Obama's
first term was the U.S. refusal to "take 'Yes' for an answer."
When Brazil and Turkey persuaded Iran to accept the terms of an agreement proposed by the
U.S. a few months earlier, the U.S. responded by rejecting its own proposal. By then the main
U.S. goal was to ratchet up sanctions at the U.N., which this diplomatic success would have undermined.
Trita Parsi explained that this was only one of many ways in which the two tracks of Obama's
"dual-track" approach were hopelessly at odds with each other. Only once Clinton was replaced
by John Kerry at the State Department did serious diplomacy displace brinksmanship and ever-rising
tensions.
That begs the question "What's Rand Paul's definition of perpetual war?" We've been at war
since 2003. There's no end in sight. That seems like "perpetual" to me. Do they need to be bigger
wars or for there to be more of them in order to meet Paul's threshold for perpetual?
'Know neither your enemy nor yourself', is how US got into this predicament. How many places
has the CIA 'organized' to such good effect? Most effectively with Jihadis grown from Afghanistan
reorganized in Syria over nearly 40 years.
What are you who calls the 'enemy' sinners when your country out does the 'enemy' in war
crime across the world?
I don't think liberals are going to establish a committee on un-American activities or blackball
people.
On the other hand, I do think that some people would publish things like Robert Parry's article
because they don't like sunshine shining on their activities.
a vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions
carried out under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the period 1950–54. Many of the accused were blacklisted
or lost their jobs, although most did not in fact belong to the Communist Party.
k has TDS, cognitive dissonance, everything else is confirmation bias leading from a severe case
of self pity over the neolibs' Clinton losing and missing the chance to experience WW III over
Putin.
"... Because that's what pays and what brought him where he is now. Krugman is not a scientist ready to be burned for his convictions. He is a despicable presstitute. Such people have no morals. ..."
"... Plato oil might throw a monkey wrench into such projections. Globalization is based on cheap oil and consume obscene amount of it for transportation of food and goods from one continent to another. ..."
"... Also Kunsler question stands: what type of growth do we need? Growth of what? Of Wall Street banks and hedge funds? Of private equity sharks ? Do we need more Wal-Marts, more McDonalds? Do we need more battleships, fighter planes and attack helicopters? ..."
"... Or we need more hybrid and electrical cars, huge upgrade of the US national grid (east-West high voltage lines, new, safer types of nuclear reactors and huge investments in improving oil extraction technologies. ..."
Did he really know nothing of economic history? Did he not think that the US would follow 19th
century free trade colonies and semi-colonies into dustbin and economic hell of deindustrialization?
Had Krugman never honestly heard of the city of Camden? Did he never wonder at the consequences
of 0% tariffs in a mercantilist world?
Time for free trade economists to sit down, be quiet and admit their mistakes.
"Why did Krugman insist free trade would be wonderful?"
Because that's what pays and what brought him where he is now. Krugman is not a scientist
ready to be burned for his convictions. He is a despicable presstitute. Such people have no morals.
Absolutely the best description and explanation of Trump and his presidency that I read
" Trump administration is basing its budget projections on the assumption that the U.S.
economy will grow very rapidly over the next decade - in fact, almost twice as fast as independent
institutions like the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve expect. There is,
as far as we can tell, no serious analysis behind this optimism; instead, the number was plugged
in to make the fiscal outlook appear better.
I guess this was only to be expected from a man who keeps insisting that crime, which is
actually near record lows, is at a record high, that millions of illegal ballots were responsible
for his popular vote loss, and so on: In Trumpworld, numbers are what you want them to be,
and anything else is fake news. ..."
I'm going to keep this metric in mind whenever Trump or his Administration declares something
to be right and everyone else wrong, i.e., fake news
Plato oil might throw a monkey wrench into such projections. Globalization is based on cheap oil
and consume obscene amount of it for transportation of food and goods from one continent to another.
Also Kunsler question stands: what type of growth do we need? Growth of what? Of Wall Street
banks and hedge funds? Of private equity sharks ? Do we need more Wal-Marts, more McDonalds? Do
we need more battleships, fighter planes and attack helicopters?
Or we need more hybrid and electrical cars, huge upgrade of the US national grid (east-West
high voltage lines, new, safer types of nuclear reactors and huge investments in improving oil
extraction technologies.
The political stability of neoliberal society much like stability of Bolshevism depends on
whether the promises of higher standard of living for everybody are delivered.
If not, and for the bottom 80% they were not, the society enters the period of political instability.
Which in the USA probably has started with the election of Trump.
MSM dogs who are now barking at Trump are barking to the wrong tree.
"... Give Putin some credit - he ended the Yeltsin crony capitalism that allowed companies like Yukos to be seized by a small group of Yeltsin's buddies. Of course in ending this reign, it is open question who now owns these rights. These article sheds no light on the real question. ..."
"... After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russia's GDP shrank by 50 percent. No wonder they turned to a strong man authoritarian. ..."
"... US spends $5T breaking up Iraq and Afghanistan under the continuum war party and you pick on Putin! There are no differences among politicians when it comes to filling the pentagon trough, except with Trump wanting to back off war with Putin. Putin a dictator yeah but it is not better that the MIC is dictator for life over US spending. ..."
"... Stop finding strawmen to make war on and deal with the damage already done here, by executives peddling F-35 job programs. ..."
"After 14 years in power of Russia, and the amount of money that the country has made, and
the amount of money that hasn't been spent on schools and roads and hospitals and so on, all that
money is in property, bank -- Swiss bank accounts -- shares, hedge funds, managed for Putin and his
cronies," he added.
Not that Putin couldn't be worth $200 billion. I bet he is. But how did he get this wealth?
Oh yea - those Russian oil companies. That is where Russia's main source of wealth lies.
Give
Putin some credit - he ended the Yeltsin crony capitalism that allowed companies like Yukos to
be seized by a small group of Yeltsin's buddies. Of course in ending this reign, it is open question
who now owns these rights. These article sheds no light on the real question.
I do not have a single shred of respect for Putin. I do not have a single shred of respect for
the Chinese leaders. But somehow we have to have diplomatic relationships with both.
And we are tied at the hip with the Chinese economy. And somewhat with the Russians. And we
agree some language does not belong here.
After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former
Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russia's GDP shrank by 50 percent.
No wonder they turned to a strong man authoritarian.
US spends $5T breaking up Iraq and Afghanistan under the continuum war party and you pick on Putin!
There are no differences among politicians when it comes to filling the pentagon trough, except
with Trump wanting to back off war with Putin. Putin a dictator yeah but it is not better that the MIC is dictator for life over US spending.
Stop finding strawmen to make war on and deal with the damage already done here, by executives
peddling F-35 job programs.
The FBI overheard The over reaction to 9/11, greatly abetted by the media, marked the beginning
of this slide into Stasi-land. The associated paranoia has led to the likes of Trump and this
goofy arsed Congress. We now have governance based not on reality, but on paranoia; on evidence
free facts, on convenient facts, on alternative facts, to each of us our own facts. I've seen
no accounting of the economic and social costs of this paranoia, but am certain they exceed the
damage of 9/11 by orders of many magnitude.
Are these symptoms of America's undeniable demise? How do we turn the ship of state around?
This precedent set by the election of Trump, how does the nation remove the stain? Can we avoid
the continuance into despotism, authoritarianism?
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....
America has been continually at war since 2001, at war under 2 presidents, at war in a range of
countries that were in no way connected to the attack on America and did not threaten America.
Tensions were building even with Russia and China. We have now the possibility of ending our warring
or working to mutual advantage with China and Russia, which will be to the advantage of many countries.
China and America have just moved to the forming of a new mutually beneficial partnership.
I find reason to be hopeful.
"... This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries. ..."
"... But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken. ..."
"... There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures. ..."
"... But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance. ..."
"... The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." ..."
"... What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor. ..."
"... My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons. ..."
If you wanted to bring sanity to a U.S. foreign policy that has spun crazily out of control,
there would be some immediate steps that you – or, say, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – could
take, starting with a renewed commitment to tell the truth to the American people.
Instead of the endless "perception management" or "strategic communication" or "psychological
operations" or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point
moments and share the facts with the citizens – the "We the People" – who are supposed to be America's
true sovereigns.
For instance, you could release what the U.S. government actually knows about the Aug. 21,
2013 sarin gas attack in Syria; what the files show about the origins of the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
in Ukraine; what U.S. intelligence analysts have compiled about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine. And those are just three examples of cases where
U.S. government propagandists have sold a dubious bill of goods to the American and world publics
in the "information warfare" campaign against the Syrian and Russian governments.
If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could
let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they're
concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are
backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington's political and media insiders
is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.
Of course, that is what Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Israel want you to believe because
it serves their regional and sectarian interests, but it isn't true. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
states are the ones arming and financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State with Israel occasionally bombing
Al Qaeda's military enemies inside Syria and providing medical support for Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
operating near the Golan Heights.
The reason for this unsavory network of alliances is that Israel, like Saudi Arabia and the
Sunni-led Gulf states, sees Iran and the so-called "Shiite crescent" – from Tehran through Damascus
to Beirut – as their principal problem. And because of the oil sheiks' financial wealth and Israel's
political clout, they control how pretty much everyone in Official Washington's establishment
views the Middle East.
But the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are not in line with the interests
of the American people – nor the average European – who are not concerned about militant Shiites
as much as militant Sunnis. After all, the worst terror attacks on Europe and the U.S. have come
from Sunni extremists belonging to or inspired by Al Qaeda and Islamic State.
This gap between the reality of Sunni-extremist terrorism and the fantasy of Official Washington's
"group think" fingering Shiite-ruled Iran explains the cognitive dissonance over President Trump's
travel ban on people from seven mostly Muslim countries. Beyond the offensive anti-Muslim prejudice,
there is the fact that he ignored the countries that produced the terrorists who have attacked
the U.S., including the 9/11 hijackers.
This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction
goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong
countries.
But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth
about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream
media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the
truth cannot be spoken.
There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability –
might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he
has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans
can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime
change" adventures.
But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives,
a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the
violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with
Russia.
Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James
Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a
top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State
but that idea, too, has met resistance.
The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign
policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean
fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote
in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because
their roots connect them."
In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow.
Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington
tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies.
So far, the Trump inner circle has shown the administrative savvy to avoid bringing in ideologues
who would dedicate their efforts to thwarting any significant change in U.S. geopolitical directions.
What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have
the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts
that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor.
Very good analysis.
The first and obvious question about the ban is "why isn't Saudi Arabia included"? As the article
shows, this question unravels this (Trump's) current version of dysfunctional foreign policy based
on misleading the public.
"... We also learn from those presstitutes that O'Bomber who killed God know how many innocent brown people at God knows how many weddings, wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky! So Saint Obama for Times presstitutes is the good experienced killer, while Trump is the bad, inexperienced killer. The irony of their twisted logic escapes them. ..."
Our neoliberal media and commenters would serve themselves and their Oligarch owners better, if
they ignored Trump's tweets, or Ivanka fashion business and focus on what he and his Admin are
doing and what consequences that would entail.
Take Times article about the special ops raid in Yemen. The obama team planned it, but it was
Trump (or somebody from hs administration below him) who pulled the trigger.
Now those suckers claim that Yemen government is against special ops raid. (Yemen has a government?
Really ? )
We also learn from those presstitutes that O'Bomber who killed God know how many innocent brown
people at God knows how many weddings, wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky!
So Saint Obama for Times presstitutes is the good experienced killer, while Trump is the bad,
inexperienced killer. The irony of their twisted logic escapes them.
"... Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending. ..."
"... As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.... ..."
U.S. General Seeks More Troops in Afghanistan
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., the commander of the American-led international military force
in Afghanistan, said "a few thousand" more troops were needed.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....
Feb 4, 2017 11:53 AM
Via Dennis Kucinich's
Facebook page...
I have dedicated my life to peace. As a member of Congress I led efforts to avert conflict and end
wars in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iran. And yet those of us who
work for peace are put under false scrutiny to protect Washington's war machine. Those who undermine
our national security by promoting military attacks and destroying other nations are held up as
national leaders to admire.
Recently Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and I took a Congressional Ethics-approved fact finding trip to Lebanon
and Syria, where we visited Aleppo and refugee camps, and met with religious leaders, governmental
leaders and people from all sides of the conflict, including political opposition to the Syrian
government.
Since that time we have been under constant attack on false grounds. The media and the war
establishment are desperate to keep hold of their false narrative for world-wide war,
interventionism and regime change, which is a profitable business for Washington insiders and which
impoverishes our own country.
Today, Rep. Gabbard came under attack yet again by the Washington Post's Josh Rogin who has been on
a tear trying to ruin the reputations of the people and the organization who sponsored our
humanitarian, fact-finding mission of peace to the Middle East. Rogin just claimed in a tweet that
as community organization I have been associated with for twenty years does not exist.
The organization is in my neighborhood. Here's photos I took yesterday of AACCESS-Ohio's marquee.
It clearly exists, despite the base, condescending assertions of Mr. Rogin.
Enough of this dangerous pettiness. Let's dig in to what is really going on, inside Syria, in the
State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon.
These leaders of the Christian faith in Aleppo begged for the US to stop funding terrorists in
#Syria. They expressed that before international interventions (covert and overt) Syrians lived in
peace without concern as to whether they were Christian, Muslim or Jew.
In the words of President Eisenhower, let's beware (and scrutinize) the military-industrial-complex.
It is time to be vigilant for our democracy.
Janet Yellen, like every other Fed chairman since WW2, is a member of the
Rockefeller/CFR. See member lists at cfr dot org.
John McCain, David
Petraeus, Joe Lieberman and Lynn Forester de Rothschild are also CFR
members. All of them are trustees at the McCain Institute at U. of Arizona.
Does that help?
War is a money making machine. And what makes
money....has to abide no matter what.
So says the banksters.
And no one is going to corral the banksters because this high tech, utopian
just in time Amazon, robot A.I assisted casheless society all comes crumbling
down.
So.....bones will be crushed, blood will be shed because somewhere someone
has some natural resource the Elties need to feed the machinery of modern life.
And the Spice Must Flow at all costs. Including human lives if need be.
"Operation Mockingbird was established by Frank Wisner, director of the
Office of Policy Coordination... Wisner recruited Philip Graham from the
Washington Post to run the project within the industry... After 1953, the
media network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time
Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire
agencies." -- Wikipedia
Wisner, Graham and Dulles were also members of
the Rockefeller/CFR.
I follow Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard and Ron Paul in my newsfeed to
remind myself that there are sane people who dedicate themselves to fight
against the MIC and the Fed.
Unreported here, but this week, Tulsi Gabard
made a two-pronged attack on the establishment to curb funding to the
terrorists in Syria/Iraq with the self-explanatory bill entitled,
"Stop Arming Terrorists Bill"
. And at the same time, flanking the
banksters
to
reinstate the Glass Steagall Act
. I have never been so impressed by a
politician's tactical awareness and passion to fight against the criminals
in power.
She had the foresight and courage to visit Syria to see for herself what
is happening on the ground and I reckon she deserves all the help I can
muster. I cannot praise her enough and having satisfied myself that the lady
is genuine, I think she will be the next primary target of a smear campaign
against her. If Trump is at all serious about draining the swamp, he should
be giving the Congresswoman a major role in his cabinet.
We've just handed what Snowden described as a system that was built to
be, "turn-key tyrrany", to a political outsider hoping he can take on the
establishment. Yet he has surrounded himself with the worst of the
establishment bunch, the Israel-first zionists, connected to Wall St.,
Wahabist nutjobs, the Federal Reserve's zionist owners. What will transpire
in the coming months, complicated by yet another set of zionists in the
media and civil services who are invested in Hitlery, is the question. War
and chaos are what the establishment thrives on - if not with Russia, then
Iran or China. A huge drive is going on to slip in a wedge - to divide and
conquer - these countries but equally within the USA, wedges are being
driven in between people to paint Trump as an incompetent monster. It is the
oldest tactic in the book, often practiced by the zionists at home to keep
the fear and loathing, stealing and murdering going for decades.
Quite frankly, I'm fucking sick of those who drive the narrative on both
sides of the political spectrum - one side calling the other, "Racists and
Nazis" while the other calls them "Pussies and Libtards". It's tiresome and
infantile that distracts people from the real problems of the MIC, Banking
and media cartels hidden in plain sight, pulling the strings to enrich and
protect their homeland: Israel. Look, I don't want to sound like a broken
record and god knows I don't ever want to hate people, but whenever I look
at every major crime against humanity from 9/11, to Ukraine and Syria,
zionists keep popping up at the epicentre
and we are led once again to
destroy Israel's enemies causing untold misery to innocent people.
Dennis Kucinich was always the real deal. I do not agree with his economics but
he was the real version of what Bernie Sanders pretended to be. He voted with Ron
Paul all the time.
You should have seen what Kucinch did in Cleveland Ms. No....
I lived there
during his tenure as mayor. 1977 to 1979.
Jesus did he give the
establishment the stink finger.
The Plain Squealer reported on him like they do Trump today. EVERY day was
"Dennis this and Dennis that". His wife at the time, Sandy, was a lunatic,
which did not help him. His handling of Muni Light was decades before the time
when politicians called out the debt-game. He damn near got whacked for it, and
the "boy-mayor" got defeated by Voinovich - seen then as "an adult".
Dennis is most times whack-o with his fiscal policies, but holy
SHIT the entire U.S. Government is also!
If
Tulsi Gabbard
likes him, then it shows Dennis is not far
off base.
Kucinch is a different politician - to say the least. He actually needs to
get back IN Congress, IMO.
Yeah, I was there too and before. Burn on big river,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtW8RkI3-c4
, Muny Light, etc. We were
circling the drain back then. Not so much better now, but god damn, Trump,
you gotta keep the EPA! You've got mountaintops blown apart in WV for coal,
and eastern NC awash in pigshit. Chemical and radioactive waste aplenty
across the rest. There's your infrastructure stimulus right there, Donny J.
Former Brunswick, Middleburg Heights, Parma, Willowick, North Olmstead,
Richmond Heights - and then Copley denizen here.
The
Land
of the Cleves
was a sorry state in the 70's. That black
bastard Stokes. Guvnuh Jimmy Rhodes.
I survived the Blizzard of '77 living at the Islander Apartments.
Kucinich didn't have a chance. He was surrounded by fat-cat
politicians, and I can still remember John Hambrick's arching eyebrow,
and Dorothy Fuldheim slaying Dennis at every turn.
Fuck, even Gib Shanley weighed in on him. Big Chuck & Hoolihan didn't
help much either. I fondly remember loitering around with Kid Leo at a
Peaches opening the summer of '78, when he said;
"Kucinich doesn't
stand a chance; the buzzard's are circling - no pun intended".
Gawd, Gib Shanley, John Hambrick, Big Chuck & Hoolihan, and Dorothy
Fuldheim. Haven't heard those names mentioned in years. Remember
Paige Palmer? My mom's TV workout coach. Dick Goddard finally
retired. The Boss was a friend of Kid Leo's. Oh those concerts @ the
Agora that segued to Richfield...
Bernie is loyal to his tribe. He was the pied piper leading earnest, well
meaning people off a cliff. His supporters represented the last gasp of white
people in that party. If you recall, Hillarys people repeatedly mocked the
berniebots as too white.
When it comes to American delusions about the nature and purpose of the
national security state, the brainwashing is across the board, left to right.
We could wish that it's just liberal idiots.
Dennis Kucinich is probably the only truly honest democrat. While I have always
disagreed with much of his point of view, I have never doubted his honesty and
sincerity.
"Plus he tried normalize our relationships with Iran and Cuba."
You are trying to change the subject. While in relations with Iran and Cube Obama did achieve
some progress, this not the whole story and this is not a major story. The major story is as following:
in relations with Russia Obama was a very dangerous neocon warmonger, who actually put even more
dangerous warmonger Hillary in charge of his foreign policy for a long four years period. And
who has a track record in Ukraine and Syria which is the track record of a typical neocon.
Both Russia and the USA nuclear forces are now on high alert, while you typing your staff.
That means that if something happens (and the sophistication of modern computers chances are higher
then before) leaders of the country have less then 20 min to prevent nuclear war. Less for Russia
as the USA got way too close and literally encircled Russia. Do you see the problem ? This Nobel
Peace Price winner does not give Russia enough time for measured response. Is not his a warmonger
with a typical neoconservative ambitions?
This is what recently Professor Steven Cohen told us. He think that this the current situation
is close or even worse then the Cuban Nuclear Crisis.
He also told a very interesting thing: it is wrong to consider CIA to be a single organization.
It is more like a loose association, conglomerate of several feuding groups each with its own
agenda and political goals, which can be even in fight with each other and with Pentagon and FBI.
"... Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899, both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street. "We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!" Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American soldiers. ..."
"... Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections. War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems. The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire. ..."
"... That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new administration in Washington and, through it, the world. ..."
Where better to launch a patriotic uprising than Faneuil Hall in Boston? It is a lodestone
of American liberty, a cathedral for freedom fighters. That is why a handful of eminent Bostonians
chose it as the place to begin a new rebellion on the sunny afternoon of June 15, 1898.
Like all Americans, they had been dizzied by the astonishing events of recent weeks. Their
country had suddenly burst beyond its natural borders. American troops had landed in Cuba. American
warships had bombarded Puerto Rico. An American expeditionary force was steaming toward the distant
Philippine Islands. Hawaii seemed about to fall to American power. President William McKinley
had called for 200,000 volunteers to fight in foreign wars. Fervor for the new idea of overseas
expansion gripped the United States.
This prospect thrilled some Americans. It horrified others. Their debate gripped the nation.
The country's best-known political and intellectual leaders took sides. In the history of US foreign
policy, this is truly the mother of all debates.
When we argue over whether we should depose a government in Iraq or Syria or Libya, whether
we should wage war in Afghanistan, whether we should encourage the bombing of Yemen, or whether
we should seek to bend Russia to our will, we are arguing the same question that was at the center
of this original debate. Every argument about foreign intervention that we make today - on both
sides - was first made in the period around 1898. Today's debates are amazingly precise repetitions
of that first one. The central question is the same: Should the United States project power into
faraway lands? Yes, to guarantee our prosperity, save innocent lives, liberate the oppressed,
and confront danger before it reaches our shores! No, intervention brings suffering and creates
enemies!
Boston was the epicenter of that original debate. Bostonians played such a large role in the
national debate that one California newspaper called anti-imperialists "the kicking Bostonese."
Several hundred of them turned out for the Faneuil Hall meeting. One speaker, the Rev. Charles
Ames, a theologian and Unitarian pastor, warned that the moment the United States seized a foreign
land, it would "sacrifice the principles on which the Republic was founded."
The policy of imperialism threatens to change the temper of our people, and to put us into
a permanent attitude of arrogance, testiness, and defiance towards other nations. ... Once we
enter the field of international conflict as a great military and naval power, we shall be one
more bully among bullies. We shall only add one more to the list of oppressors of mankind.
At the end of that afternoon, one of the meeting's organizers came to the podium and read a
resolution. "Resolved, that the mission of the United States is to help the world by an example
of successful self-government, and that to abandon the principles and the policy under which we
have prospered, and embrace the doctrine and practices now called imperial, is to enter the path
which, with other great republics, has ended in the downfall of free institutions," it declared.
"Resolved, that our first duty is to cure the evils in our own country." The resolution was adopted
by acclamation.
At the very moment these words were shaking Faneuil Hall, debate on the same question - overseas
expansion - was reaching a climax in Congress. It is a marvelous coincidence: The first anti-imperialist
rally in American history was held on the same day that Congress voted, also for the first time,
on whether the United States should take an overseas colony. The colony in question was Hawaii,
but all understood that the real question was immensely greater. It was nothing less than the
future of the Republic: whether or not the United States should become a global military power
and seek to shape the fate of faraway lands.
On that day, as expected, the House of Representatives voted to annex Hawaii. Yet the great debate
had only begun. Working from offices in Boston, anti-imperialists spent the summer and fall of
1898 writing letters to potential sympathizers across the country.
Their work came to fruition on Nov. 18, when an eager crowd packed a law office on Milk Street
to witness the founding of the Anti-Imperialist League. George Boutwell, who had been a passionate
abolitionist as well as a congressman, US senator, and governor of Massachusetts, was chosen by
acclimation as the league's first president. In his mind, every abolitionist was a natural anti-imperialist,
since anyone who opposed keeping human beings as slaves must also oppose ruling other peoples
against their will.
At the end of 1898, American negotiators forced the defeated Spanish to sign the Treaty of
Paris, in which they surrendered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. On Jan. 4, 1899,
President McKinley submitted the treaty for Senate ratification. That set off a monthlong debate
over what one senator called "the greatest question that has ever been presented to the American
people." The dominant figure on each side was a brilliantly articulate Republican senator from
Massachusetts.
George Frisbie Hoar of Worcester led the anti-imperialist charge. The United States, he insisted,
must not "rush madly upon this new career," lest it become "a cheap-jack country raking after
the cart for the leavings of European tyranny." He ended his speech in a crescendo: "The poor
Malay, the poor African, the downtrodden workman of Europe will exclaim, as he reads this new
doctrine: 'Good God! Is there not one place left on earth where, in right of my manhood, I can
stand up and be a man?' "
Hoar's sharpest opponent was Henry Cabot Lodge of Beacon Hill and Nahant. Lodge told the Senate
that since many foreign peoples were unequipped to govern themselves wisely, they should submit
to American guidance and trust "the American people, who have never failed in any great duty or
feared to face any responsibility, to deal with them in that spirit of justice, humanity, and
liberty which has made us all that we are today or can ever hope to be."
From their bustling office on Kilby Street, leaders of the Anti-Imperialist League fed information
to friendly senators and heavily lobbied the handful who remained undecided. The league also published
a stream of pamphlets, called Liberty Tracts, aimed at bringing its arguments to a larger audience.
Often their titles were questions. "Which shall it be, nation or empire?" asked one. Another:
"Is it right for this country to kill the natives of a foreign land because they wish to govern
themselves?"
On Feb. 6, 1899, despite these intense efforts, senators ratified the Treaty of Paris - by
just one vote more than the required two-thirds majority. Armed rebellion broke out immediately
in the Philippines. Tens of thousands of American troops were sent to suppress it. President McKinley
faced a difficult task: explain to a divided nation why taking foreign lands was no betrayal of
the American idea. He decided to deliver a speech in Boston, home of the Anti-Imperialist League
and thus the heart of enemy territory. To assure himself a friendly audience, however, he chose
as his platform the Home Market Club, one of the country's most potent agglomerations of corporate
power.
A crowd led by Mayor Josiah Quincy cheered as McKinley emerged from South Station around midday
on Feb. 15, 1899. The next night, nearly two thousand guests packed Mechanics Hall for the largest
banquet ever staged in the United States. In his speech, McKinley asserted that the essential
goodness of the American people is the supreme and sole necessary justification of whatever the
United States chooses to do in the world. This goodness, he acknowledged, might not be clear to
the "misguided Filipino," but soon the islands would prosper under the rule "not of their American
masters, but of their American emancipators."
"Did we need their consent to perform a great act for humanity?" he asked. "We had it in every
aspiration of their minds, in every hope of their hearts."
These words disgusted the philosopher William James. In an anguished letter to Boston newspapers,
he called McKinley's speech a "shamefully evasive" attempt to obscure the central truth of the
age: "We are cold-bloodedly, wantonly, and abominably destroying the soul of a people who never
did us an atom of harm in their lives. It is bald, brutal piracy."
Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor
Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899,
both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street.
"We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!"
Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American
soldiers.
"I vote with the army that wears the uniform and carries the flag of my country," he said.
"When the enemy has yielded and the war is over, we can discuss other matters!"
Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections.
War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems.
The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire.
"Well, we are defeated for the time," admitted the Cambridge anti-imperialist Charles Eliot
Norton. "But the war is not ended, and we are enlisted for the war."
That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American
intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new
administration in Washington and, through it, the world.
"... Jack Ma said the poor plight of American economy was due to the costly wars waged by Washington and has nothing to do with trade ties with Beijing. The US adopted a strategy to control intellectual property rights and select brands three decades ago, leaving lower-level works to the rest of the world.... Microsoft and IBM have created hundreds of millions in profits through globalisation. ..."
Jack Ma said the poor plight of American economy was due to the costly wars waged by Washington
and has nothing to do with trade ties with Beijing. The US adopted a strategy to control intellectual
property rights and select brands three decades ago, leaving lower-level works to the rest of
the world.... Microsoft and IBM have created hundreds of millions in profits through globalisation.
This large sum could have been invested in infrastructure and employment, but was instead put
towards 13 wars, he said. The US simply failed to allot the funds reasonably." , Ma said his meeting
with Trump was much more productive than expected the discussions mainly focused on .... American
enterprises selling in Asia through Alibaba's platform, which will provide about one million jobs
for Americans in various ways.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....
"... A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy, proclaiming its will to represent the people. ..."
"... I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find amusing. ..."
"... For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to 2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy. Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world. ..."
"... I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you? ..."
"... Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China. ..."
Nah, Reagan was tragedy, this one is farce.
A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy,
proclaiming its will to represent the people.
Has anyone noticed the creepy banner CNN is using for their coverage? Two general's stars on
a red ribbon? I was struck by it, so I went to CNN's archive to see what they did for the last
two inaugurations. I couldn't find anything like it.
And of course there is the story that his
team wanted a military vehicle parade, e.g. Tanks, mobile missile launchers, etc. How long before
the Don dons a uniform?
I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find
amusing.
kidneystones 01.21.17 at 12:23 am
What I told my own first-year students yesterday:
For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see
the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to
2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy.
Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of
America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world.
I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking
office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary
wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin
supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want
a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you?
Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing
countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency.
We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a
president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China.
He's not interested in what goes on in other people's countries. He wants to mind his own business.
He wants to get rich and become as famous as possible. We don't know what will happen, but for
the first time in a very long time Americans have elected a president who does not want to attack
other countries.
We are not looking at a new US war in the Middle East for the first time in a very long time.
That doesn't mean the war won't happen. Americans love bombing people. But I'm immensely pleased
Hillary Clinton is not fighting more wars in the Middle East, and that for the first time in a
very long time Americans seem to have decided to leave the rest of us live our lives in peace.
From comments: "Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity
about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble
is, Davos ain't fiction." "The biggest cabal of sociopathic criminals the world has ever
known."
Notable quotes:
"... This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s, warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said. ..."
"... Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone. Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what he likes to call the spirit of Davos. ..."
"... It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation. They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings. ..."
"... 'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition, but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to keep them largely protected.' ..."
"... Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks. ..."
"... Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable! ..."
"... Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble is, Davos ain't fiction. ..."
"... Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017; it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid. ..."
"... What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while paying lip-service to the poor? ..."
"... One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not a new question. ..."
"... Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we all rely on but especially citizens. ..."
"... Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works. ..."
"... Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership, plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international ones. ..."
"... My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception. ..."
"... This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts. After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world and on what steps to take to mitigate it."! ..."
"... I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the complete destruction of diverse cultures. ..."
Trump's influence can also be felt in other ways. The manner in which he won the US election,
tapping in to deep-seated anger about the unfair distribution of the spoils of economic growth,
has been noted. There is talk in Davos of the need to ensure that globalisation works for everyone.
This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s,
warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash
against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive
impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said.
Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone.
Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to
rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered
until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what
he likes to call the spirit of Davos.
It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump
presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation.
They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the
new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings.
In Trump's absence, it has been left to two senior members of the outgoing Obama administration
– his vice-president, Joe Biden, and secretary of state John Kerry – to fly the US flag.
Just
as significantly, Xi Jinping is the first Chinese premier to attend Davos and has made it clear
that, unlike Trump, he has no plans to resile from international obligations. The sense of a changing
of the guard is palpable.
missuswatanabe
It's the way globalisation has been managed for the benefit of the richest in the developed
world that has been bad for the masses rather than globalisation itself.
I thought this was an interesting, if US-centric, perspective on things:
'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing
workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could
have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition,
but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to
keep them largely protected.'
Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks.
Paul Paterson -> ConBrio
Decent, hardworking Americans facing social and economic insecurity, whether on the right
or left, ought to be the focus. We need to deal with the concerns of the average citizen, however
it is they vote. Fringe groups don't serve our attention given tbe very real problems the country
faces.
Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables
and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but
little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average
Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable!
What we should concern ourselves with is the very real social and economic insecurity felt
by many in red states and blue states alike. Those decent and hardworking Americans, regardless
of party, are joined in much. Deplorables aren't the average Republican voter and didn't win
Trump an election - they are too few to win much of anything.
What you keep referring to as Deplorables are decent Americans seeking change and socioeconomic
justice. You are mixing up citizens who happen to vote for the GOP withbwhite nationalist scum.
How dare you tar all conservatives with the hate monger brush!
Spunky325 -> Paul Paterson
Actually, before taking office, Trump strong-armed Ford and GM into putting more money in
their American plants, instead of moving more production to Mexico. He's also questioned cost-overruns
on Air Force One and several military projects which is causing companies to back off. I can't
think of another American president who has felt it was important to keep jobs in America or
who has questioned military spending. Good for him!
Paul Paterson -> Spunky325
You've made it quite clear "you can't think" as you've bought into the ruse. The question
is why are you so boastful about it? Trump's policies are even seen by economists on the right
as creating staggering levels of debt, creating more economic inequality and unlikely to increase
jobs.
Among many flaws, they point out tax proposals that hurt the poor and middle class to such
a degree it almost seems targeted. This is the same economic plot that has failed working Americans
repeatedly. You folks are getting caught up in a time share pitch and embracing policy that
has little chance to help the average American - however it is they vote. It isn't supposed
to but y'all are asleep at the wheel.
DrBlamm0
Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about
the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble
is, Davos ain't fiction.
johhnybgood
Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses
of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017;
it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid.
bilyou
What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their
hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while
paying lip-service to the poor?
Maybe Trump just decided to trough it at his tower and avoid hanging out with a grotesque
bunch of insufferable see you next Tuesdays.
Ricardo_K
One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the
vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not
a new question.
Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we
all rely on but especially citizens.
James Patterson
Xi's statements on a trade war are completely self serving. But his assertions that he is
against protectionism and unfair trading practices is laughably hypocritical. China refuses
to let any Silicon Valley Internet company one inch past the Great Firewall. Under his direction
the CCP has imposed draconian regulations, which change by the week, on American Companies
operating in China making fair competition with local Chinese companies impossible.
The business climate in China is reprehensible. The CCP has resorted to extortion, requiring
that U.S. tech companies share their most sensitive trade secrets and IP with Chinese state
enterprises or get barred from conducting business there. Sadly, U.S. companies entered China
with high expectations and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in factories, labs and
equipment. This threat has caused many CEO's to sacrifice their company's long term viability
by transferring their most closely guarded technological advances to China or face the loss
their entire investment in China. Even so, multinationals are beginning the Chinese exodus
led by those with less financial exposure soon to be followed by companies like Apple despite
significant economic ties.
True, most people believe a 'trade war' with China means America is the defacto loser because
of dishonest reporting. The truth is that America's economic exposure to China is extremely
limited. U.S. exports to China represent only 7% of America's total exports worldwide; which
in turn accounts for less than 1% of total U.S. GDP (Wells Fargo Economics Group 2015). Most
of America's exports to China are raw materials, which can be redirected to other markets with
some effort. So even if China blocked all U.S. exports tomorrow, America's economy could absorb
the blow with minimal damage. This presents the U.S. government with a wide range of options
to deal with China's many trade infractions and unfair practices as aggressively or punitively
as it wishes.
europeangrayling
Poor Davos attendees. You feel for them at their fancy alpine Bilderberg. It's like the
meeting of the mafia organizations, if the mafia became legal and respected now and ran the
world economy. And I don't think those economic royalists at Davos miss Trump, Trump was a
small fish compared to the Davos people. They make Trump look like a dishwasher.
They are just pissed Trump came out against the TPP and those globalist 'free trade' deals,
and doesn't want more regime change maybe. They like everything else about Trump's policies,
the big tax cuts, environmental and banking deregulations galore, it's like Reagan 2.0, without
the 'free trade'. But they really want that 'free trade' though, those guys are used to getting
everything. Imagine if Bernie won, they would really hate that guy, he is also against the
TPPs and trade, and for less war, and against everything else they are used to. And that's
good, if those honorable brilliant Davos gentleman don't like you, that's not a bad thing.
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs
With secular stagnation we should all be asking why is economics so bad?
Keynesian redistributive capitalism went out with Margaret Thatcher and inequality has been
rising ever since (there is a clue there for the economists amongst us).
How did these new ideas rise to prominence?
"There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics
It's awarded by Sweden's central bank, foisted among the five real prizewinners, often to economists
for the 1% -- and the surviving Nobel family is strongly against it."
"The award for economics came almost 70 years later-bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a
bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden's 300th anniversary." Yes, you read
that right: "a marketing ploy."
Today's economics rose to prominence by awarding its economists Nobel Prizes that weren't Nobel
Prizes.
No wonder it's so bad.
Global elites can use all sorts of trickery to put their ideas in place, but economics is economics
and if doesn't reflect how the economy operates it won't work.
Secular stagnation – what more evidence do we need?
HauptmannGurski -> bcarey
Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had
he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works.
Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership,
plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus
is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international
ones.
Meanwhile, alibaba's Jack Ma said in Davos that the US had spent many trillions on wars in
the last 30 years and neglected their own infrastructure. Money is for people, or some such
like, he said. Just mentioning it here, because the MSM tend to dislike running this kind of
remark.
Rajanvn -> HauptmannGurski
My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave
and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception.
Did it, in any way, with all the stars in the financial galaxy gathered in one place, warn
against the 2008 global financial meltdown? The real reason why so many moneybags congregate
at a place which would be shunned by all who have no affinity for snow sports may be, according
to my own reckoning, may not be that innocent and may even be quite sinister.
This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other
secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete
with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts.
After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss
you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the
purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited
to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world
and on what steps to take to mitigate it."!
Roland33
I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital
flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape
Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we
are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning
and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the
complete destruction of diverse cultures.
If everyone drives Toyota and everyone drinks Starbucks
we lose the diversity of culture that people claim they find so valuable. And replaces it with
a mono-culture of Levi jeans and McDonalds. Wealth inequality is really something that can
be reduced if you look various countries score higher in this regard than others while still
being highly successful market economies but I think money is secondary to the displacement
and alienation that come with the first two aspects of globalisation. I find it strange that
it is now the right that advocates reversing these neoliberal trends and the left that seems
to champion it. I was conscious during the 90's and anti-globalisation was clearly a left wing
issue. For whatever reason the left just leaves room for the right to harvest the grapes of
wrath they warned about many years ago. Don't blame the "populist" right ask why the left left
them the space.
Scott Ritter offers no new information or original arguments in his HuffPo piece,
but he distills what we know into a concise, well-supported analysis.
The article leads with McCain telling reporters during a recent trip to Ukraine
that Russian hacking of the election was an "act of war." Coincidentally, a link
came into my Twitter feed yesterday to a podcast with Mark Ames about Trump's ties
to Russia via his ex-campaign manager Paul Manafort. It was recorded last August,
but I hadn't listened to it until last night.
Ames mentioned an article he'd written for The Nation in 2008, which jarred
my memory. In fact, I had read that article, which was about McCain's ties to the
Kremlin via Rick Davis, Manafort's partner in the lobbying firm Davis Manafort.
Davis was McCain's campaign manager in his 2008 race against Obama.
This story is getting stinkier by the day. Unfortunately. Ritter's controversial
background will make it easy for those who don't want to hear his message to attack
the messenger.
For anyone who's interested, here's a link to the podcast (actually YouTube
audio):
Jan 17, 2017 4:25 PM Following urges by Edward Snowden and Julian Assange
(who offered his own extradition in exchange) , President Obama has largely commuted the remaining
prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, the army intelligence analyst convicted of an enormous 2010 leak
that revealed American military and diplomatic activities across the world, disrupted the administration,
and made WikiLeaks, the recipient of those disclosures, famous.
Manning will be released in May 2017 according to the White House. The move is part of a final
push of pardons and commutations in the closing days of the administration, and Obama has now shortened
the sentences of more federal inmates than any other president, bringing the total to 1,385 as of
today.
Previously both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who leaked his cache of documents detailing
U.S. intelligence efforts around the same time as Manning's crime, advocated for her clemency. "Mr.
President, if you grant only one act of clemency as you exit the White House, please: free Chelsea
Manning," Snowden tweeted. "You alone can save her life."
Manning was arrested in 2010 after leaking 700,000 military files and diplomatic cables to Wikileaks,
and her sentence exceeded that received by other individuals recently convicted of releasing classified
material. She has twice attempted to commit suicide while incarcerated, and went on a hunger strike
in an effort to get the Army to allow her to undertake gender reassignment surgery.
As The New York Times reports, the decision by Obama rescued Manning from an uncertain
future as a transgender woman incarcerated at the male military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.
She has been jailed for nearly seven years, and her 35-year sentence was by far the longest punishment
ever imposed in the United States for a leak conviction.
Now, under the terms of Mr. Obama's commutation announced by the White House on Tuesday, Ms. Manning
is set to be freed in five months, on May 17 of this year, rather than in 2045.
The commutation also relieved the Department of Defense of the difficult responsibility of her
incarceration as she pushes for treatment for her gender dysphoria - including sex reassignment surgery
- that the military has no experience providing.
As The New York Times describes, Manning was still known as Bradley Manning
when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009. There, she worked as a low-level intelligence
analyst helping her unit assess insurgent activity in the area it was patrolling, a role that gave
her access to a classified computer network.
She copied hundreds of thousands of military incident logs from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars,
which, among other things, exposed abuses of detainees by Iraqi military officers working with American
forces and showed that civilian deaths in the Iraq war were likely much higher than official estimates.
The files she copied also included about 250,000 diplomatic cables from American embassies around
the world showing sensitive deals and conversations, dossiers detailing intelligence assessments
of Guantánamo detainees held without trial, and a video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad
in two Reuters journalists were killed, among others.
She decided to make all these files public, as she wrote at the time, in the hope that they would
incite "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms." WikiLeaks' disclosed them - working with traditional
news organizations including The New York Times - bringing notoriety to the group and its founder,
Julian Assange.
The disclosures set off a frantic scramble as Obama administration officials sought to minimize
any potential harm, including getting to safety some foreigners in dangerous countries who were identified
as having helped American troops or diplomats. Prosecutors, however, presented no evidence that anyone
was killed because of the leaks.
In her commutation application, Ms. Manning said she had not imagined that she would be sentenced
to the "extreme" term of 35 years, a term for which there was "no historical precedent." (There have
only been a handful of leak cases, and most sentence are in the range of one to three years.)
"I take full and complete responsibility for my decision to disclose these materials to the public,"
she wrote.
"I have never made any excuses for what I did. I pleaded guilty without the protection of a
plea agreement because I believed the military justice system would understand my motivation for
the disclosure and sentence me fairly. I was wrong."
The US Constitution allows a president to pardon "offenses against the United States" and commute
-- either shorten or end -- federal sentences. Obama has so far granted 148 pardons since taking
office in 2009 -- fewer than his predecessors, who also served two terms, George W. Bush (189) and
Bill Clinton (396). But he has surpassed any other president in the number of granted, commutations,
1,385, more than the total number given by the past 12 presidents combined.
The White House is expected to announce another round of clemency grants on Thursday, officials
said. Most of Obama's clemency grants have gone to relatively unknown individuals but Tuesday's batch
contained some who are famous, as is typical for presidents in their final days.
DHS security honchos want to justify their existence. There is not greater danger to national
security then careerists in position of security professionals. Lying and exaggerating the
treats to get this dollars is is what many security professionals do for living. They are
essentially charlatans.
Notable quotes:
"... In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure. ..."
"... Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
"... Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack." ..."
"... That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012. ..."
"... Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE." ..."
"... according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients. ..."
"... "Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives." ..."
"... The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications private. ..."
"... Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, US officials say." ..."
"... DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability." ..."
"... The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed. ..."
"... Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.'" ..."
"... The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion" into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication. ..."
"... The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack. ..."
The mainstream hysteria over Russia has led to dubious or downright false stories that have
deepened the New Cold War
In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with
the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria
by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure.
DHS had initiated the now-discredited tale of a hacked computer at the Burlington, Vermont Electricity
Department by sending the utility's managers misleading and alarming information, then leaked a story
they certainly knew to be false and continued to put out a misleading line to the media.
Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking
of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.
The story of how DHS twice circulated false stories of Russian efforts to sabotage US "critical
infrastructure" is a cautionary tale of how senior leaders in a bureaucracy-on-the-make take advantage
of every major political development to advance its own interests, with scant regard for the truth.
The DHS had carried out a major public campaign to focus on an alleged Russian threat to US power
infrastructure in early 2016. The campaign took advantage of a US accusation of a Russian cyber-attack
against the Ukrainian power infrastructure in December 2015 to promote one of the agency's major
functions - guarding against cyber-attacks on America's infrastructure.
Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for
electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications
for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical
impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack."
That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national
infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran
by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012.
Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with
the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald
Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across
the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate
and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that
it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE."
The report clearly conveyed to the utilities that the "tools and infrastructure" it said had been
used by Russian intelligence agencies to affect the election were a direct threat to them as well.
However, according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who
had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US
infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients.
"Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We
ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives."
Lee and his staff found only two of a long list of malware files that could be linked to Russian
hackers without more specific data about timing. Similarly a large proportion of IP addresses listed
could be linked to "GRIZZLY STEPPE" only for certain specific dates, which were not provided.
The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report
as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows
bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications
private.
Lee said the DHS staff that worked on the technical information in the report is highly competent,
but the document was rendered useless when officials classified and deleted some key parts of the
report and added other material that shouldn't have been in it. He believes the DHS issued the report
"for a political purpose," which was to "show that the DHS is protecting you."
Planting the Story, Keeping it Alive
Upon receiving the DHS-FBI report the Burlington Electric Company network security team immediately
ran searches of its computer logs using the lists of IP addresses it had been provided. When one
of IP addresses cited in the report as an indicator of Russian hacking was found on the logs, the
utility immediately called DHS to inform it as it had been instructed to do by DHS.
In fact, the IP address on the Burlington Electric Company's computer was simply the Yahoo e-mail
server, according to Lee, so it could not have been a legitimate indicator of an attempted cyber-intrusion.
That should have been the end of the story. But the utility did not track down the IP address before
reporting it to DHS. It did, however, expect DHS to treat the matter confidentially until it had
thoroughly investigated and resolved the issue.
"DHS wasn't supposed to release the details," said Lee. "Everybody was supposed to keep their
mouth shut."
Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators
of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post
failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking
with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story
under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont,
US officials say."
DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the
grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code
to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity
in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's
electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."
The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected
to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid
had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of
a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed.
The day after the story was published, the DHS leadership continued to imply, without saying so
explicitly, that the Burlington utility had been hacked by Russians. Assistant Secretary for Pubic
Affairs J. Todd Breasseale gave CNN a statement that the "indicators" from the malicious software
found on the computer at Burlington Electric were a "match" for those on the DNC computers.
As soon as DHS checked the IP address, however, it knew that it was a Yahoo cloud server and therefore
not an indicator that the same team that allegedly hacked the DNC had gotten into the Burlington
utility's laptop. DHS also learned from the utility that the laptop in question had been infected
by malware called "neutrino," which had never been used in "GRIZZLY STEPPE."
Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending
its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The
DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is
encouraging people to run indicators.'"
Original DHS False Hacking Story
The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking
of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion"
into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication.
Like the Burlington fiasco, the false report was preceded by a DHS claim that US infrastructure
systems were already under attack. In October 2011, acting DHS deputy undersecretary Greg Schaffer
was quoted by The Washington Post as warning that "our adversaries" are "knocking on the doors of
these systems." And Schaffer added, "In some cases, there have been intrusions." He did not specify
when, where or by whom, and no such prior intrusions have ever been documented.
On Nov. 8, 2011, a water pump belonging to the Curran-Gardner township water district near Springfield,
Illinois, burned out after sputtering several times in previous months. The repair team brought in
to fix it found a Russian IP address on its log from five months earlier. That IP address was actually
from a cell phone call from the contractor who had set up the control system for the pump and who
was vacationing in Russia with his family, so his name was in the log by the address.
Without investigating the IP address itself, the utility reported the IP address and the breakdown
of the water pump to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in turn passed it on to the Illinois
Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center, also called a fusion center composed of Illinois State
Police and representatives from the FBI, DHS and other government agencies.
On Nov. 10 – just two days after the initial report to EPA – the fusion center produced a report
titled "Public Water District Cyber Intrusion" suggesting a Russian hacker had stolen the identity
of someone authorized to use the computer and had hacked into the control system causing the water
pump to fail.
The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine
that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in
putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining
that it must have been a Russian hack.
The fusion center "intelligence report," circulated by DHS Office of Intelligence and Research,
was picked up by a cyber-security blogger, who called The Washington Post and read the item to a
reporter. Thus the Post published the first sensational story of a Russian hack into a US infrastructure
on Nov. 18, 2011.
After the real story came out, DHS disclaimed responsibility for the report, saying that it was
the fusion center's responsibility. But a Senate subcommittee investigation
revealed in
a report a year later that even after the initial report had been discredited, DHS had not issued
any retraction or correction to the report, nor had it notified the recipients about the truth.
DHS officials responsible for the false report told Senate investigators such reports weren't
intended to be "finished intelligence," implying that the bar for accuracy of the information didn't
have to be very high. They even claimed that report was a "success" because it had done what "what
it's supposed to do – generate interest."
Both the Burlington and Curran-Gardner episodes underline a central reality of the political game
of national security in the New Cold War era: major bureaucratic players like DHS have a huge political
stake in public perceptions of a Russian threat, and whenever the opportunity arises to do so, they
will exploit it.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security
policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war
in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at
[email protected].
The Pacifica Radio/UC Berkeley
Social Activism Sound Recording Project
Martin Luther King,
"Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"
April 30, 1967, Riverside Church, New York
The sermon which I am preaching this morning in a sense is not the usual kind of sermon, but it
is a sermon and an important subject, nevertheless, because the issue that I will be discussing today
is one of the most controversial issues confronting our nation. I'm using as a subject from which
to preach, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam."
Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war.
I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice.
The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts,
the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations
and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins.
But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery.
Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus,
"and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I
agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral
crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult
one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing
their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great
difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding
world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this
dreadful conflict, we're always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move
on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling
to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that
is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all
our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.
Polls reveal that almost fifteen million Americans explicitly oppose the war in Vietnam. Additional
millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the
war [are] half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden. This reveals that millions have chosen to move
beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the
mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking
out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty.
It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence
dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told,
and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam
is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the
best in our tradition.
Yes, we must stand, and we must speak. [tape skip]...have moved to break the betrayal of my own
silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures
from the destruction of Vietnam. Many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At
the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about
the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" Peace and civil rights don't mix,
they say. And so this morning, I speak to you on this issue, because I am determined to take the
Gospel seriously. And I come this morning to my pulpit to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.
This sermon is not addressed to Hanoi, or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed
to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and
the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Nor is it an attempt to make North
Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play
in a successful resolution of the problem. This morning, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi
and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans, who bear the greatest responsibility,
and entered a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.
Now, since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major
reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is...a very obvious and almost
facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America.
A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise
of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments,
hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as
if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would
never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures
like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube.
And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy
soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of
that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled
to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.
Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the
war was doing far more than devastating the hope of the poor at home. It was sending their sons,
and their brothers, and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportion relative
to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by society
and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had
not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with a cruel irony
of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has
been unable to seat them together in the same school room. So we watch them in brutal solidarity,
burning the huts of a poor village. But we realize that they would hardly live on the same block
in Chicago or Atlanta. Now, I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience
in the ghettos of the North over the last three years--especially the last three summers. As I have
walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails
and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while
maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action;
for they ask and write me, "So what about Vietnam?" They ask if our nation wasn't using massive doses
of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home,
and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos
without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own
government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds
of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent. Been a lot of applauding over the last
few years. They applauded our total movement; they've applauded me. America and most of its newspapers
applauded me in Montgomery. And I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my
home was bombed and said, we can't do it this way. They applauded us in the sit-in movement--we non-violently
decided to sit in at lunch counters. The applauded us on the Freedom Rides when we accepted blows
without retaliation. They praised us in Albany and Birmingham and Selma, Alabama. Oh, the press was
so noble in its applause, and so noble in its praise when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Bull
Connor;when I was saying, Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark.
There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you
say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward
little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another
burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize
was not just something taking place, but it was a commission--a commission to work harder than I
had ever worked before for the brotherhood of Man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national
allegiances. But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment
to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace
is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could
it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men, for communists and capitalists,
for their children and ours, for black and white, for revolutionary and conservative. Have they forgotten
that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved His enemies so fully that he died for them?
What, then, can I say to the Vietcong, or to Castro, or to Mao, as a faithful minister to Jesus Christ?
Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life? Finally, I must be true to
my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be the son of the Living God. Beyond the calling
of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. And because I believe that
the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I
come today to speak for them. And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for
ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula.
I speak not now of the soldiers of each side, not of the military government of Saigon, but simply
of the people who have been under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think
of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution until some attempt
is made to know these people and hear their broken cries.
Now, let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you
realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French
and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the Communist revolution in China. They
were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little-known fact, and these people declared themselves independent
in 1945. They quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom, and yet our government
refused to recognize them. President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we fell
victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international
situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought
eight long, hard, brutal years trying to re-conquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the
United States of America. It came to the point that we were meeting more than eighty percent of the
war costs. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954,
a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated
at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that, and after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face
the sad fact that our government sought, in a real sense, to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after
the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva
agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem who turned
out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all
opposition. People were brutally murdered because they raised their voices against the brutal policies
of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. The peasants
watched as all this was presided over by United States influence and by increasing numbers of United
States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was
overthrown, they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer
no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in
Vietnam today? It's a man by the name of general Ky [Air Vice Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky] who fought with
the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life
is Hitler. This is who we are supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government and the press generally
won't tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments
which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support and all the while the people read
our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish
under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and
apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps, where minimal
social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go, primarily
women, and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres
of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the
precious trees. They wander into the towns and see thousands of thousands of the children, homeless,
without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by
our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting
for their mothers. We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village.
We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's
only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the United Buddhist Church. This is a role our nation
has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the
privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I'm convinced
that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical
revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented
society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important
than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of
being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of
our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside,
but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must
be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey
on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of
values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation.
It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money
in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment
of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry
of Latin America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything
to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay
hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business
of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting
poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark
and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled
with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military
defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
Oh, my friends, if there is any one thing that we must see today is that these are revolutionary
times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and
out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless
and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have
seen a great light. They are saying, unconsciously, as we say in one of our freedom songs, "Ain't
gonna let nobody turn me around!" It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid
fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much
of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This
has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment
against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated.
Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes
hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful
commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo, we shall boldly challenge unjust mores, and
thereby speed up the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be
made low, and the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory
of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical
rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole
in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a worldwide fellowship
that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for
an all-embracing, unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept,
so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become
an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind. And when I speak of love I'm not speaking of some
sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have
seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which
leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality
is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of John: "Let us love one another, for God is love.
And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for
God is love. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us."
Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against
this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate
desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this
war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there
is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the
triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. We are presently moving down a dead-end
road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism.
The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were
solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image of
God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity
and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State--they are
God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous
foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America's strayed away,
and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching
with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.
It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America.
Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on." I call on Washington
today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men
of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late.
The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic
force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations
with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you
don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in
the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."
Now it isn't easy to stand up for truth and for justice. Sometimes it means being frustrated.
When you tell the truth and take a stand, sometimes it means that you will walk the streets with
a burdened heart. Sometimes it means losing a job...means being abused and scorned. It may mean having
a seven, eight year old child asking a daddy, "Why do you have to go to jail so much?" And I've long
since learned that to be a follower to the Jesus Christ means taking up the cross. And my bible tells
me that Good Friday comes before Easter. Before the crown we wear, there is the cross that we must
bear. Let us bear it--bear it for truth, bear it for justice, and bear it for peace. Let us go out
this morning with that determination. And I have not lost faith. I'm not in despair, because I know
that there is a moral order. I haven't lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long,
but it bends toward justice. I can still sing "We Shall Overcome" because Carlyle was right: "No
lie can live forever." We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant was right: "Truth pressed
to earth will rise again." We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell was right: "Truth forever
on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne." Yet, that scaffold sways the future. We shall overcome
because the bible is right: "You shall reap what you sow." With this faith we will be able to hew
out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the
jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will
be able to speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty
stream. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when the lion and the lamb will lie down
together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid because
the words of the Lord have spoken it. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all
over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free
at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" With this faith, we'll sing it as
we're getting ready to sing it now. Men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into
pruning hooks. And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore.
And I don't know about you, I ain't gonna study war no more.
Transcript by Gary Handman, UC Berkeley Media Resources Center, 2006
Increasingly, the American public who declared
McCain a 'loser' in his attempts to become
President, see the world through the eyes of Trump.
However, many in the deep state remain sympathetic
to McCain style fanaticism. It is why as Donald
Trump alleged, the intelligence agencies were
irresponsible in leaking the bogus dossier that
McCain handed to them with glee.
Enrique Ferro's insight:
Donald Trump has few significant connections to Russia,
whilst McCain has many profound connections with the
fascist regime in Kiev. He helped them get into power,
he was there cheering on the coup. Therefore, why has
no one accused McCain of being a Ukrainian agent,
working to destabilise American democracy in the name
of a corrupt foreign power?
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke.
Notable quotes:
"... People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their minds. ..."
"... People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe it. ..."
"... People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story". Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday Night Live sketch about Trump. ..."
"... "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit." ..."
"... It's just partisan warfare. ..."
"... "Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy. ..."
"... CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else? ..."
"... Glenn Greenwald explains the whole vendetta against Trump based on sham data. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/ ..."
"... With release of the buzz feed data, they overplayed their hand, destroyed their narrative, embarrassed themselves, and ultimately strengthened Trump. ..."
"... "they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man. ..."
"... The long knives will come out during the next recession ..."
"... This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information about Bush43 as a draft dodger. ..."
"... In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus. ..."
"... In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect, though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the buzz feed overreach. ..."
"... Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is Putin's fault' narrative comes in. ..."
"... Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security. ..."
"... Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very sick. ..."
"... There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and too specific. ..."
"... the election should never been about Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary could never wrap here head around. ..."
"... Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news. ..."
The thing about Trump is that people can imagine he's the kind of guy who would enjoy being urinated
on by Russian prostitutes, even if the allegations are untrue. He is so into gold and into women.
People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump
will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their
minds.
I know a lot of people who dislike Trump, and none of them seem to believe the buzzfeed story.
People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe
it.
People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story".
Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday
Night Live sketch about Trump.
"This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials
who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet
another hit."
Kind of like Comey was a huge embarrassment to Republicans? I don't think so. It's just
partisan warfare.
"Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about
how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy.
"This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials
who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet
another hit."
CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else?
Like Trump doesn't use "sham data" and innuendo. Who cares? Poetic justice. Trump is just going
to waste his time pursuing vendettas against those who sullied his good name.
Maybe that drama will "crowd out" some of his plans to enact Paul Ryan's agenda. Maybe it will
cause a backlash among those Americans interested in a free press and democratic norms.
Like I said some of your ideas are good, but they are tarnished by some of the really stupid
things you say by association.
We already know that Trump has a Teflon shield. If the establishment is going to get him, they
damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables. Trumped up charges
won't cut it.
Should-Read: Josh Marshall: What You Didn't See: "What may be the most significant news of
the day barely made a ripple...
...Donald Trump, ten days from becoming President, has an approval rating of 37%. Most presidents
seldom get so low. Some never do. For ten days away from inauguration it's totally unprecedented....
Each of the last three presidents had approval ratings of at least 65% during their presidential
transitions.... Curiously absent from press coverage [has been that] Trump, his agenda and his
party are deeply unpopular... [and have] gotten steadily more unpopular over the last four weeks..."
"they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing
will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man.
The long knives will come out during the next recession, when Trump will have proven
his incompetence. Pretense for impeachment is unknowable, but it better be good!
This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information
about Bush43 as a draft dodger.
In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness
for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus.
In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect,
though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the
buzz feed overreach.
Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative.
There was an interesting movie about the Rather case staring Robert Redford and Cate Blanchette.
Trump is engaging in the same thuggish behavior as Republicans used against Rather and his producer
in that case. Or course CBS folded because they had regulatory changes about affiliate ownership
before the Bush administration.
We can expect the same cowardice from our corporate media regarding the Trump administration.
It would be interesting to know if Trump had something to do with release of the buzz feed report.
It would make Trump smarter than I think he really is. My understanding is that John McCain, who
hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before buzz feed released it.
"My understanding is that John McCain, who hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before
buzz feed released it." A lot of people knew about it. The eight leading congress people on the
intelligence committees knew about it. David Corn reported about it in October in Mother Jones.
"Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative."
I'll agree with you on this. Obama went more positive in 2008 and 2012 than Hillary did in
2016 and was successful at the polls. Negative campaigning works but seems like too much of it
depresses turnout.
Part of it is that establishment Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost.
It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject.
Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that
Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is
Putin's fault' narrative comes in.
Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify
Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security.
Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very
sick.
There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and
too specific.
The Republican's policy ideas are awful. Trump will be a terrible president. Putin wants us
weak, and the Republican party will deliver just as it did during the Bush presidency.
We will make little progress on our important problems, and make massive blunders that cost
us for decades.
Global warming will continue to improve the Russian Climate. Progress on renewable energy will
be slowed, improving the market for Russian oil and gas. The US will worsen its healthcare problems.
The US will exacerbate its inequality. The toxic republican attitude toward the institutions of
democracy will come from all three branches of the federal government, and most state governments.
Putin doesn't like Hillary. At the time, she said Putin's election was rigged. And they were pushing
Russia on all fronts. Trump is an isolationist who doesn't care about human rights or freedom
of the press.
Agreed. There were probably better Putin narratives, and the election should never been about
Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary
could never wrap here head around.
Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of
fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news.
This Paul Wood. is very funny "I understand the CIA believes it is credible..." The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. But
despite this Paul wood provided a
good (albeit very dirty) hatchet job. Looks like neocons declared the open war on Trump. And as
they are just a flavor of Trotskyites they are are capable of everything as they preach " the end justifies
the means"... with their global neoliberal revolution under threat they can do as low as gangsters.
Fake evidence is OK form in the best the "end justified the means" way.
Notable quotes:
"... Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele ..."
"... As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information. ..."
"... Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself, outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" ..."
"... He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together". ..."
"... The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries. ..."
"... Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. ..."
"... At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have cameras." ..."
"Trump 'compromising' claims: How and why did we get here?"
By Paul Wood...BBC News...Washington...1-12-2017...47 minutes ago
"Donald Trump has described as "fake news" allegations published in some media that his election
team colluded with Russia - and that Russia held compromising material about his private life.
The BBC's Paul Wood saw the allegations before the election, and reports on the fallout now they
have come to light.
The significance of these allegations is that, if true, the president-elect of the United States
would be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.
I understand the CIA believes it is credible that the Kremlin has such kompromat - or compromising
material - on the next US commander in chief. At the same time a joint taskforce, which includes
the CIA and the FBI, has been investigating allegations that the Russians may have sent money
to Mr Trump's organisation or his election campaign.
Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by
a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele.
As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy
giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB,
the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information.
They told him that Mr Trump had been filmed with a group of prostitutes in the presidential
suite of Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel. I know this because the Washington political research company
that commissioned his report showed it to me during the final week of the election campaign.
The BBC decided not to use it then, for the very good reason that without seeing the tape -
if it exists - we could not know if the claims were true. The detail of the allegations were certainly
lurid. The entire series of reports has now been posted by BuzzFeed.
[Image of Trump's Tweet]
Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself,
outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" Later, at his much-awaited
news conference, he was unrestrained. "A thing like that should have never been written," he said,
"and certainly should never have been released."
He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together".
The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump
superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries.
Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter.
But these are not political hacks - their usual line of work is country analysis and commercial
risk assessment, similar to the former MI6 agent's consultancy. He, apparently, gave his dossier
to the FBI against the firm's advice.
[Photo of Trump in Moscow, 2013 w/beauty contestants]
And the former MI6 agent is not the only source for the claim about Russian kompromat on the
president-elect. Back in August, a retired spy told me he had been informed of its existence by
"the head of an East European intelligence agency".
Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with
the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more
than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the
Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature".
'Be very careful'
The claims of Russian kompromat on Mr Trump were "credible", the CIA believed. That is why
- according to the New York Times and Washington Post - these claims ended up on President Barack
Obama's desk last week, a briefing document also given to Congressional leaders and to Mr Trump
himself.
Mr Trump did visit Moscow in November 2013, the date the main tape is supposed to have been
made. There is TV footage of him at the Miss Universe contest. Any visitor to a grand hotel in
Moscow would be wise to assume that their room comes equipped with hidden cameras and microphones
as well as a mini-bar.
At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very
careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have
cameras." So the Russian security services have made obtaining kompromat an art form.
One Russian specialist told me that Vladimir Putin himself sometimes says there is kompromat
on him - though perhaps he is joking. The specialist went on to tell me that FSB officers are
prone to boasting about having tapes on public figures, and to be careful of any statements they
might make.
A former CIA officer told me he had spoken by phone to a serving FSB officer who talked about
the tapes. He concluded: "It's hokey as hell."
Mr Trump and his supporters are right to point out that these are unsubstantiated allegations.
But it is not just sex, it is money too. The former MI6 agent's report detailed alleged attempts
by the Kremlin to offer Mr Trump lucrative "sweetheart deals" in Russia that would buy his loyalty.
Mr Trump turned these down, and indeed has done little real business in Russia. But a joint
intelligence and law enforcement taskforce has been looking at allegations that the Kremlin paid
money to his campaign through his associates.
Legal applications
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian
banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify
only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything -
giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard
from other sources.
"I'm going to write a story that says " I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he
would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.
Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly -
a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential
campaign.
It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot
act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.
The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic,
US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice.
For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies:
the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency,
responsible for electronic spying.
Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application.
They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic
records from two Russian banks.
Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a
more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order
was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.
Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign
citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation
is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony
offence.
A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three
of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump,"
he said.
I spoke to all three of those identified by this source. All of them emphatically denied any
wrongdoing. "Hogwash," said one. "Bullshit," said another. Of the two Russian banks, one denied
any wrongdoing, while the other did not respond to a request for comment.
The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the
Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding
back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.
Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures
in Congress. Only eight people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House
and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in
Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff attend "gang
of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed
to take notes.
'Puppet'
In the letter to the FBI director, James Comey, Mr Reid said: "In my communications with you
and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess
explosive information about close ties and co-ordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers,
and the Russian government - a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Mr
Trump praises at every opportunity.
"The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this
information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing
it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information."
The CIA, FBI, Justice and Treasury all refused to comment when I approached them after hearing
about the Fisa warrant.
It is not clear what will happen to the inter-agency investigation under President Trump -
or even if the taskforce is continuing its work now. The Russians have denied any attempt to influence
the president-elect - with either money or a blackmail tape.
If a tape exists, the Russians would hardly give it up, though some hope to encourage a disloyal
FSB officer who might want to make some serious money. Before the election, Larry Flynt, publisher
of the pornographic magazine Hustler, put up a million dollars for incriminating tape of Mr Trump.
Penthouse has now followed with its own offer of a million dollars for the Ritz-Carlton tape (if
it exists).
It is an extraordinary situation, 10 days before Mr Trump is sworn into office, but it was
foreshadowed during the campaign.
During the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump a "puppet" of Russia's
leader, Vladimir Putin. "No puppet. No puppet," Mr Trump interjected, talking over Mrs Clinton.
"You're the puppet. No, you're the puppet."
In a New York Times op-ed in August, the former director of the CIA, Michael Morell, wrote:
"In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr Putin had recruited Mr Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
Agent; puppet - both terms imply some measure of influence or control by Moscow.
Michael Hayden, former head of both the CIA and the NSA, simply called Mr Trump a "polezni
durak" - a useful fool.
The background to those statements was information held - at the time - within the intelligence
community. Now all Americans have heard the claims. Little more than a week before his inauguration,
they will have to decide if their president-elect really was being blackmailed by Moscow."
"... By Andrew J. Bacevich, professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is ..."
"... American elites might, of course, have assigned a far different, less celebratory meaning to the passing of the Cold War. They might have seen the outcome as a moment that called for regret, repentance, and making amends. ..."
"... annus mirabilis ..."
"... Wall Street Journal, ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Weekly Standard, ..."
"... ne plus ultra ..."
"... Putin's no saint, but Jeebus, Kissinger and Brxzyzeniski and Nuland and all the rest? The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight? Do they get to run us all into the grave, because we Policy Addicts go along with the insane "logic" of whatever the hell it is that "NATO" in all its idiotic parts is doing? Was the Crimea a casus belli? though it seems to people who are deep in the Think Tanks think EVERYTHING is a casus belli, and never ask any questions of the sorts that Sun Tzu counseled ought to be asked, long before and at every point in any "war" action ..."
"... This disabled Vietnam vet offers a big FU, to all the Fokkers, armchair or ergonomic Battlespace Manager or Foggy Bottom delicate or Langley overstuffed chairs, who are driving the vast bus we all have to ride in off the cliff, all happy with their impunity and immunity and faux self-created, self-p[rolonged, terminal Grand Responsibilities. ..."
"... Show how smart you are, send another 300 Marines to Iraq, and another 300 to Notagainistan, for "we won't say combat" involvement in the futility and corruption and destabilization and destruction there Who will be the last Troop, and the last "noncombatant," to die in this old-as-civilization idiocy? Who Fokking cares, really, as long as it is one of those "Enemies " ..."
"... Gorbachev must have been either stupid or traitor to accept such promises in lieu of real and tangible concessions. ..."
"... In my view, the biggest mistake was not NATO expansion but rather the looting of the Soviet Union. If the major soviet republics was to be integrated within the western alliance more or less in the same manner as Germany, the situation today would have been very different. Instead of sucking soviet resources over a longer term like Germany does to the EU, west was salivating on the prospects of literally new loots thus awaken the pray. ..."
"... That made the people of Russia and many others feel disgust, and they resisted at the first opportunity they got. Now, there is no way Russia can be put under the American influence. This is all more remarkable because most Russians had admired the empire so much thus putting them under American umbrella would have been so easy. Putin, for example, was ready to play ball with the west but their insistence on total dominance disgusted even him. I am sure the global elite recognizes this but some still cannot get over how they let this pass. ..."
"... Putin still supports neoliberalism but this too will pass as neoliberal order is controlled by New York bankers and only way out is another world order, which is exactly what Russia and China started building. Departure of Russia from neoliberal order, I believe, will seal the fate of neoliberalism as it just did it exactly 100 years ago. ..."
"... I think Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy ..."
"... Lasch was notable for other trenchant social criticism, including identifying narcissism as the dominant trait of the postwar American psyche and challenging some tenets of second wave feminism. As befits a fearless and original thinker he didn't fit neatly into any established intellectual paradigm. ..."
"... Globalisation was accompanied by an ideology, neoliberalism, that was guaranteed to fail. The problems were there at the start but were ignored, it was always going to go wrong in exactly the way it has. ..."
"... Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas. Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many. Democracy – that requires the support of the majority. ..."
Andrew Bacevich: How the US Blew the Post-Cold-War Era
Posted on
January 9, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. While this account is useful, it omits two events I regard as
key. One is how the US was singularly responsible for the plutocratic land
grab in post-Soviet Russia (see
How Harvard Lost Russia
), which led to a stunning fall in male lifespans,
a rise of a class of oligarchs, which in turn led to the rise of Putin,
whose success resulted from reining in the oligarchs to a degree and
delivering a sustained improvement in economic conditions for ordinary
people. The US fondness for neoliberal projects all over the world has not
done much for international stability. But that is a feature, not a bug, for
members of the industrial/surveillance complex.
Second is the fact that
under Clinton, the US began to move NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries,
contrary to a promise made by James Baker to Gorbachev. The Russians
apparently regarded this as binding, while the legalistic US took the
position that unless it was in writing, it didn't count. George Kennan,
hardly a slouch in the Cold Warrior department, said
it would prove to be the worst geopolitical mistake the US had ever made in
the modern era
.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in October 1989 abruptly ended one historical
era and inaugurated another. So, too, did the outcome of last year's U.S.
presidential election. What are we to make of the interval between those two
watershed moments? Answering that question is essential to understanding how
Donald Trump became president and where his ascendency leaves us.
Hardly had this period commenced before observers fell into the habit of
referring to it as the "post-Cold War" era. Now that it's over, a more
descriptive name might be in order. My suggestion: America's
Age of Great Expectations.
Forgive and Forget
The end of the Cold War caught the United States completely by surprise.
During the 1980s, even with Mikhail Gorbachev running the Kremlin, few in
Washington questioned the prevailing conviction that the Soviet-American
rivalry was and would remain a defining feature of international politics
more or less in perpetuity. Indeed, endorsing such an assumption was among
the prerequisites for gaining entrée to official circles. Virtually no one
in the American establishment gave serious thought to the here-today,
gone-tomorrow possibility that the Soviet threat, the Soviet empire, and the
Soviet Union itself might someday vanish. Washington had plans aplenty for
what to do should a Third World War erupt, but none for what to do if the
prospect of such a climactic conflict simply disappeared.
Still, without missing a beat, when the Berlin Wall fell and two years
later the Soviet Union imploded, leading members of that establishment
wasted no time in explaining the implications of developments they had
totally failed to anticipate. With something close to unanimity,
politicians and policy-oriented intellectuals interpreted the unification of
Berlin and the ensuing collapse of communism as an all-American victory of
cosmic proportions. "We" had won, "they" had lost - with that outcome
vindicating everything the United States represented as the archetype of
freedom.
From within the confines of that establishment, one rising young
intellectual audaciously
suggested
that the "end of history" itself might be at hand, with the
"sole superpower" left standing now perfectly positioned to determine the
future of all humankind. In Washington, various powers-that-be considered
this hypothesis and concluded that it sounded just about right. The future
took on the appearance of a blank slate upon which Destiny itself was
inviting Americans to inscribe their intentions.
American elites might, of course, have assigned a far different, less
celebratory meaning to the passing of the Cold War. They might have seen the
outcome as a moment that called for regret, repentance, and making amends.
After all, the competition between the United States and the Soviet
Union, or more broadly between what was then called the Free World and the
Communist bloc, had yielded a host of baleful effects. An arms race between
two superpowers had created monstrous nuclear arsenals and, on
multiple occasions
, brought the planet precariously close to
Armageddon. Two singularly inglorious wars had claimed the lives of many
tens of thousands
of American soldiers and literally
millions
of Asians. One, on the Korean peninsula, had ended in an
unsatisfactory draw; the other, in Southeast Asia, in catastrophic defeat.
Proxy fights in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East killed so
many more and laid waste to whole countries. Cold War obsessions led
Washington to
overthrow
democratic governments,
connive
in assassination, make common cause with corrupt dictators, and
turn a blind eye to
genocidal violence
. On the home front, hysteria compromised civil
liberties and fostered a sprawling, intrusive, and unaccountable national
security apparatus. Meanwhile, the
military-industrial complex
and its beneficiaries conspired to spend
vast sums on weapons purchases that somehow never seemed adequate to the
putative dangers at hand.
Rather than reflecting on such somber and sordid matters, however, the
American political establishment together with ambitious members of
the country's intelligentsia found it so much more expedient simply
to move on. As they saw it, the
annus mirabilis
of 1989 wiped away
the sins of former years. Eager to make a fresh start, Washington granted
itself a plenary indulgence. After all, why contemplate past unpleasantness
when a future so stunningly rich in promise now beckoned?
Three Big Ideas and a Dubious Corollary
Soon enough, that promise found concrete expression. In remarkably short
order, three themes emerged to define the new American age. Informing each
of them was a sense of exuberant anticipation toward an era of almost
unimaginable expectations. The twentieth century was ending on a high note.
For the planet as a whole but especially for the United States, great things
lay ahead.
Focused on the world economy, the first of those themes emphasized the
transformative potential of turbocharged globalization led by U.S.-based
financial institutions and transnational corporations. An "open world"
would facilitate the movement of goods, capital, ideas, and people and
thereby
create wealth
on an unprecedented scale.
In the
process, the rules governing American-style corporate capitalism would come
to prevail everywhere on the planet. Everyone would benefit, but especially
Americans who would continue to enjoy more than their fair share of material
abundance.
Focused
on statecraft, the second theme spelled out the implications of an
international order dominated as never before - not even in the heydays of
the Roman and British Empires - by a single nation. With the passing of the
Cold War, the United States now stood apart as both supreme power and
irreplaceable global leader, its status guaranteed by its unstoppable
military might.
In the editorial offices of the
Wall Street Journal,
the
Washington Post,
the
New Republic,
and the
Weekly
Standard,
such "truths" achieved a self-evident status. Although more
muted in their public pronouncements than Washington's reigning pundits,
officials enjoying access to the Oval Office, the State Department's 7th
floor, and the E-ring of the Pentagon generally agreed. The assertive
exercise of (benign!) global hegemony seemingly held the key to ensuring
that Americans would enjoy safety and security, both at home and abroad, now
and in perpetuity.
The third theme was all about rethinking the concept of personal freedom
as commonly understood and pursued by most Americans. During the protracted
emergency of the Cold War, reaching an accommodation between freedom and the
putative imperatives of national security had not come easily. Cold
War-style patriotism seemingly prioritized the interests of the state at the
expense of the individual. Yet even as
thrillingly expressed
by John F. Kennedy - "Ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" - this was never an
easy sell, especially if it meant wading through rice paddies and getting
shot at.
Once the Cold War ended, however, the tension between individual freedom
and national security momentarily dissipated. Reigning conceptions of what
freedom could or should entail underwent a radical transformation.
Emphasizing the removal of restraints and inhibitions, the shift made itself
felt everywhere, from patterns of consumption and modes of cultural
expression to sexuality and the definition of the family. Norms that had
prevailed for decades if not generations - marriage as a union between a man
and a woman, gender identity as fixed at birth - became passé. The concept
of a transcendent common good, which during the Cold War had taken a
backseat to national security, now took a backseat to maximizing individual
choice and autonomy.
Finally, as a complement to these themes, in the realm of governance, the
end of the Cold War cemented the status of the president as quasi-deity. In
the Age of Great Expectations, the myth of the president as a deliverer from
(or, in the eyes of critics, the ultimate perpetrator of) evil flourished.
In the solar system of American politics, the man in the White House
increasingly became the sun around which everything seemed to orbit. By
comparison, nothing else much mattered.
From one administration to the next, of course, presidential efforts to
deliver Americans to the Promised Land regularly came up short. Even so,
the political establishment and the establishment media collaborated in
sustaining the pretense that out of the next endlessly hyped "race for the
White House," another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan would magically emerge
to save the nation. From one election cycle to the next, these campaigns
became longer and more expensive, drearier and yet ever more circus-like.
No matter. During the Age of Great Expectations, the reflexive tendency to
see the president as the ultimate guarantor of American abundance, security,
and freedom remained sacrosanct.
Blindsided
Meanwhile, between promise and reality, a yawning gap began to appear.
During the concluding decade of the twentieth century and the first
decade-and-a-half of the twenty-first, Americans endured a seemingly endless
series of crises. Individually, none of these merit comparison with, say,
the Civil War or World War II. Yet never in U.S. history has a sequence of
events occurring
in such close proximity subjected American
institutions and the American people to greater stress.
During the decade between 1998 and 2008, they came on with startling
regularity: one president impeached and his successor chosen by the direct
intervention of the Supreme Court; a massive terrorist attack on American
soil that killed thousands, traumatized the nation, and left senior
officials bereft of their senses; a mindless, needless, and unsuccessful war
of choice launched on the basis of false claims and outright lies; a
natural disaster
(exacerbated by engineering folly) that all but
destroyed a major American city, after which government agencies mounted a
belated and half-hearted response; and finally, the worst economic downturn
since the Great Depression, bringing ruin to millions of families.
For the sake of completeness, we should append to this roster of seismic
occurrences one additional event: Barack Obama's election as the nation's
first black president. He arrived at the zenith of American political life
as a seemingly messianic figure called upon not only to undo the damage
wrought by his predecessor, George W. Bush, but somehow to absolve the
nation of its original sins of slavery and racism.
Yet during the Obama presidency race relations, in fact, deteriorated.
Whether prompted by cynical political calculations or a
crass desire to boost ratings
, race baiters came out of the woodwork -
one of them, of course,
infamously birthered
in Trump Tower in mid-Manhattan - and poured their
poisons into the body politic. Even so, as the end of Obama's term
approached, the cult of the
presidency itself remained remarkably
intact.
Individually, the impact of these various crises ranged from
disconcerting to debilitating to horrifying. Yet to treat them separately
is to overlook their collective implications, which the election of Donald
Trump only now enables us to appreciate. It was not one president's
dalliance
with an intern
or
"
hanging
chads
"
or
9/11
or
"
Mission
Accomplished
"
or
the
inundation
of the Lower Ninth Ward
or
the
collapse
of Lehman Brothers
or
the absurd birther movement that
undermined the Age of Great Expectations. It was the way all these events
together exposed those expectations as radically suspect.
In effect, the various crises that punctuated the post-Cold War era
called into question key themes to which a fevered American triumphalism had
given rise. Globalization, militarized hegemony, and a more expansive
definition of freedom, guided by enlightened presidents in tune with the
times,
should
have provided Americans with all the blessings that
were rightly theirs as a consequence of having prevailed in the Cold War.
Instead, between 1989 and 2016, things kept happening that weren't supposed
to happen. A future marketed as all but foreordained proved elusive, if not
illusory. As actually experienced, the Age of Great Expectations became an
Age of Unwelcome Surprises.
A Candidate for Decline
True, globalization created wealth on a vast scale, just not for ordinary
Americans. The already well-to-do did splendidly, in some cases
unbelievably so
. But middle-class incomes
stagnated
and good jobs became increasingly hard to find or keep. By
the election of 2016, the United States looked increasingly like a society
divided between haves and have-nots, the affluent and the left-behind, the
1% and everyone else. Prospective voters were noticing.
Meanwhile, policies inspired by Washington's soaring hegemonic ambitions
produced remarkably few happy outcomes. With U.S. forces continuously
engaged in combat operations, peace all but vanished as a policy objective
(or even a word in Washington's political lexicon). The acknowledged
standing of the country's military as the world's best-trained,
best-equipped, and best-led force coexisted uneasily with the fact that it
proved
unable to win
. Instead, the national security establishment became
conditioned to the idea of permanent war, high-ranking officials taking it
for granted that ordinary citizens would simply accommodate themselves to
this new reality. Yet it soon became apparent that, instead of giving
ordinary Americans a sense of security, this new paradigm induced an acute
sense of vulnerability, which left many susceptible to
demagogic fear mongering
.
As for the revised definition of freedom, with autonomy emerging as the
national
summum bonum,
it left some satisfied but others adrift.
During the Age of Great Expectations, distinctions between citizen and
consumer blurred. Shopping became tantamount to a civic obligation,
essential to keeping the economy afloat. Yet if all the hoopla surrounding
Black Friday and Cyber Monday represented a celebration of American freedom,
its satisfactions were transitory at best, rarely extending beyond the due
date printed on a credit card statement. Meanwhile,
as
digital connections displaced personal ones,
relationships,
like jobs, became more contingent and temporary.
Loneliness
emerged as an abiding affliction. Meanwhile, for all the
talk of empowering the marginalized - people of color, women, gays - elites
reaped the lion's share of the benefits while ordinary people were left to
make do. The atmosphere was rife with hypocrisy and even a whiff of
nihilism.
To these various contradictions, the establishment itself remained
stubbornly oblivious, with the 2016 presidential candidacy of Hillary
Clinton offering a case in point. As her long record in public life made
abundantly clear, Clinton embodied the establishment in the Age of Great
Expectations. She believed in globalization, in the indispensability of
American leadership backed by military power, and in the post-Cold War
cultural project. And she certainly believed in the presidency as the
mechanism to translate aspirations into outcomes.
Such commonplace convictions of the era, along with her vanguard role in
pressing for the empowerment of women, imparted to her run an air of
inevitability. That she deserved to win appeared self-evident. It was,
after all, her turn.
Largely overlooked were signs that
the abiding themes of the Age of Great Expectations no longer commanded
automatic allegiance.
Gasping for Air
Senator Bernie Sanders offered one of those signs. That a
past-his-prime, self-professed socialist from Vermont with a negligible
record of legislative achievement and tenuous links to the Democratic Party
might mount a serious challenge to Clinton seemed, on the face of it,
absurd. Yet by zeroing in on unfairness and inequality as inevitable
byproducts of globalization, Sanders struck a chord.
Knocked briefly off balance, Clinton responded by modifying certain of
her longstanding positions. By backing away from free trade, the
ne plus
ultra
of globalization, she managed, though not without difficulty, to
defeat the Sanders insurgency. Even so, he, in effect, served as the canary
in the establishment coal mine, signaling that the Age of Great Expectations
might be running out of oxygen.
A parallel and far stranger insurgency was simultaneously wreaking havoc
in the Republican Party. That a narcissistic political neophyte stood the
slightest chance of capturing the GOP seemed even more improbable than
Sanders taking a nomination that appeared Clinton's by right.
Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed, erratic, and with little regard
for truth, Trump was
sui generis
among presidential candidates
.
Yet he possessed a singular gift: a knack for riling up those who nurse
gripes and are keen to pin the blame on someone or something. In post-Cold
War America, among the millions that Hillary Clinton was famously
dismissing
as "deplorables," gripes had been ripening like cheese in a
hothouse.
Through whatever combination of intuition and malice aforethought, Trump
demonstrated a genius for motivating those deplorables. He pushed their
buttons. They responded by turning out in droves to attend his rallies.
There they listened to a message that they found compelling.
In Trump's pledge to "make America great again" his followers heard a
promise to restore everything they believed had been taken from them in the
Age of Great Expectations. Globalization was neither beneficial nor
inevitable, the candidate insisted, and vowed, once elected, to curb its
effects along with the excesses of corporate capitalism, thereby bringing
back millions of lost jobs from overseas. He would, he swore,
fund
a massive infrastructure program,
cut taxes
, keep a lid on the national debt, and generally
champion the cause
of working stiffs. The many complications and
contradictions inherent in these various prescriptions would, he assured his
fans, give way to his business savvy.
In considering America's role in the post-Cold War world, Trump exhibited
a similar impatience with the status quo. Rather than allowing armed
conflicts to drag on forever, he
promised
to win them (putting to work his
mastery
of military affairs) or, if not, to quit and get out, pausing
just long enough to
claim
as a sort of consolation prize whatever spoils might be lying
loose on the battlefield. At the very least, he would prevent so-called
allies from treating the United States like some patsy. Henceforth, nations
benefitting from American protection were going to
foot their share
of the bill. What all of this added up to may not have
been clear, but it did suggest a sharp departure from the usual post-1989
formula for exercising global leadership.
No less important than Trump's semi-coherent critique of globalization
and American globalism, however, was his success in channeling the
discontent of all those who nursed an inchoate sense that post-Cold War
freedoms might be working for some, but not for them.
Not that Trump had anything to say about whether freedom confers
obligations, or whether conspicuous consumption might not actually hold the
key to human happiness, or any of the various controversies related to
gender, sexuality, and family. He was indifferent to all such matters.
He was, however, distinctly able to offer his followers a grimly
persuasive explanation for how America had gone off course and how the
blessings of liberties to which they were entitled had been stolen. He did
that by fingering as scapegoats
Muslims
,
Mexicans
, and others "not-like-me."
Trump's political strategy reduced to this: as president, he would
overturn the conventions that had governed right thinking since the end of
the Cold War. To the amazement of an establishment grown smug and lazy, his
approach worked. Even while disregarding all received wisdom when it came
to organizing and conducting a presidential campaign in the Age of Great
Expectations, Trump won. He did so by enchanting the disenchanted, all
those who had lost faith in the promises that had sprung from the bosom of
the elites that the end of the Cold War had taken by surprise.
Adrift Without a Compass
Within hours of Trump's election, among progressives, expressing fear and
trepidation at the prospect of what he might actually do on assuming office
became
de rigueur
. Yet those who had actually voted for Trump were
also left wondering what to expect. Both camps assign him the status of a
transformative historical figure. However, premonitions of incipient
fascism and hopes that he will engineer a new American Golden Age are likely
to prove similarly misplaced. To focus on the man himself rather than on
the circumstances that produced him is to miss the significance of what has
occurred.
Note, for example, that his mandate is almost entirely negative. It
centers on rejection: of globalization, of counterproductive military
meddling, and of the post-Cold War cultural project. Yet neither Trump nor
any of his surrogates has offered a coherent alternative to the triad of
themes providing the through line for the last quarter-century of American
history. Apart a lingering conviction that forceful - in The Donald's case,
blustering - presidential leadership can somehow turn things around,
"Trump_vs_deep_state" is a dog's breakfast.
In all likelihood, his presidency will prove less transformative than
transitional. As a result, concerns about what he may do, however worrisome,
matter less than the larger question of where we go from here. The
principles that enjoyed favor following the Cold War have been found
wanting. What should replace them?
Efforts to identify those principles should begin with an honest
accounting of the age we are now leaving behind, the history that happened
after "the end of history." That accounting should, in turn, allow room for
regret, repentance, and making amends - the very critical appraisal that
ought to have occurred at the end of the Cold War but was preempted when
American elites succumbed to their bout of victory disease.
Don't expect Donald Trump to undertake any such appraisal. Nor will the
establishment that candidate Trump so roundly denounced, but which
President-elect Trump, at least in his senior national security
appointments, now shows sign of accommodating. Those expecting Trump's
election to inject courage into members of the political class or
imagination into inside-the-Beltway "thought leaders" are in for a
disappointment. So the principles we need - an approach to political economy
providing sustainable and equitable prosperity; a foreign policy that
discards militarism in favor of prudence and pragmatism; and an enriched,
inclusive concept of freedom - will have to come from somewhere else.
"Where there is no vision," the Book of Proverbs tells us, "the people
perish." In the present day, there is no vision to which Americans
collectively adhere. For proof, we need look no further than the election
of Donald Trump.
The Age of Great Expectations has ended, leaving behind an ominous void.
Yet Trump's own inability to explain what should fill that great void
provides neither excuse for inaction nor cause for despair. Instead, Trump
himself makes manifest the need to reflect on the nation's recent past and
to think deeply about its future.
A decade before the Cold War ended, writing in
democracy
, a
short-lived journal devoted to "political renewal and radical change," the
historian and social critic Christopher Lasch
sketched out
a set of principles that might lead us out of our current
crisis. Lasch called for a politics based on "the nurture of the soil
against the exploitation of resources, the family against the factory, the
romantic vision of the individual against the technological vision, [and]
localism over democratic centralism." Nearly a half-century later, as a
place to begin, his prescription remains apt.
vlade
,
January 9, 2017 at 4:49 am
I'm sorry Yves, but I don't buy your narrative "NATO broke the promise" .
NATO's promise to Gorbatchev was not to deploy non-GERMAN troops in what
used to be GDR. That was 1990s promise that Baker gave to Gorbatchev (and
this is confirmed by Gorbatchev, see
https://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
).
Baker did say "no inch east" in the opening stages of the discussion with
Gorbatchev, but the ultimate agreement was only German troops in GDR (and
that was enshrined in law, both German and international). I'd point out
that one of the ideas Gorbatchev discussed there was to include Russia in
NATO as well, as part of the supra-European security structure.
Now, Gorbatchev also now says NATO expansion in 1993 was a mistake, and
that it was against the spirit of what was discussed in 1990. But then you
have to also look at the countries themselves, who were all pushing VERY
hard to get into NATO, as they saw it (rightly or wrongly) as the only way
how to get out of the Russian sphere of influence (much more so than EU
accession). Especially Poland in its history was overrun by Russians at
least once a century since about 1600s, and twice (or three times, depends
on whether you count M-R pact in the post WW2 spoils division or not) in the
20th alone.
I actually spoke to some people on the Czech side who were involved in
the talks at the highest level (close to then Czech president Vaclav Havel),
and US, including the US military, was very much against the expansion, and
the Visegrad Four had to lobby with Clinton very very hard to get it.
So the agency wasn't NATOs, or even US military – that's a very US
centric view of the world that denies the people of anyone who isn't US a
say in their future – and I'd point out that regimes in those countries at
the time were entirely legitimate, and NATO membership was (and still is) is
supported by most of the populace there – seen exactly as about the only
shield from Russian expansionist (which taking over Crimea did little to
soothe).
The problem wasn't NATO expansion per se (in the 1990s). The problem was
that US saw themselves as the victors in the Cold War, and showed (as per
usual) little manganimity and understanding for the former foe. Almost as
little as the Allies showed to Central Powers after WW1 and the disaster
that casued later on, except now we have nukes.
Yes, I think the history is very tangled. Certainly there was a very
determined push by east European countries to get NATO and EU membership
– probably even more for the former than the latter. From the 20th
Century perspective of living anywhere east of Berlin or Vienna, the
USSR/Russia always seemed the biggest threat to freedom and independence
for the majority. Much of this I think arose from the perception of
Germany (also of course an historic aggressor) as having been completely
tamed and defeated post 1945. Its notable of course that even the new
wave of anti-EU politician in eastern Europe tend to be quite pro-Nato
(with some exceptions).
But I think there was a lot of muddled thinking and bad faith on the
part of both western Europeans and the US in the 1990's. There was
certainly open contempt for Russia in the 1990's and a feeling they could
be made do what they wanted. A policy which showed more consideration of
Russian sensibilities would have been to focus on EU membership first,
and perhaps a sort of softer NATO membership that would have specifically
excluded foreign bases on those countries soil, but would have given more
reassurances of protection in the event of Russian hostility would have
been more appropriate.
I think there are lots of echoes of pre-WWI in having what was
originally a tight set of agreements between major powers aimed at a
specific threat being extended much wider over small unstable countries.
A policy which showed more consideration of Russian
sensibilities would have been to focus on EU membership first, and
perhaps a sort of softer NATO membership that would have
specifically excluded foreign bases on those countries soil, but
would have given more reassurances of protection in the event of
Russian hostility would have been more appropriate.
If NATO had in fact promised not to deploy any forces in Eastern
Europe in perpetuity any "reassurances of protection" it gave would
rightly have been regarded as worthless -- not to mention invite
obvious and grievous comparisons to the worthless security guarantee
Britain and France extended to Poland in 1939 – because such
reassurances would be made in the full knowledge of all concerned that
NATO had already surrendered the means to give them effect.
I also want to point out that until the annexation of the Crimea
there were no NATO forces permanently stationed in either Poland or
the Baltic republics. Poland requested 10 000 NATO troops two weeks
after the annexation of the Crimea, and even now NATO is scrambling to
find 600-800 troops to deploy on a "semi-permanent" basis to each of
the Baltic republics.
By "annexation of Crimea" you mean "reuniting Crimea with
Russia". The Ukraine is 100% a 20th century creation and Crimea was
ALWAYS Russian until Kruschev, by fiat (and he a Ukrainian) simply
gave Crimea to Ukraine without asking, without concern, for what
the people of Crimea wanted.
Russia didn't "take" Crimea from Ukraine. Russia took back what
was historically (and ethnically and culturally) theirs by long
history.
And gee, why is NATO "Scrambling" to find troops to garrison in
another set of countries? What geopolitical conditions are real,
and which BS are us mopes supposed to believe and feed into our
fear generators "going forward (sic)?" What are our rulers and
great patently incompetent but very well compensated and
demonstrably corrupt military, security (sic) and "statecraft"
sh!tes doing to cool down, stand down, stop wasting huge amounts of
time, talent and money ginning up more threats and counter threats
and Grand Strategies? What's the End of the Great Game, or does it
just go on until all the resources are exhausted, or the cheating
officers that "man" and "woman" the Land Based Leg of the
Service-Competition-Everyone-Has-The-"Right"-To-A-Share-Of-The-Carcass-Absolutely-Must-Have
Triad, or some glitch, as there have been many of, in all the
circuitry and mechanisms and algorithms does an "Oopsie" and we all
and a lot of other species get to die? Not to mention the bugs and
nanodevices and autonomous killing machines that the grim
enthusiasts of the Geopolitical Masterbatorium just can't wait to
get on line?
Putin's no saint, but Jeebus, Kissinger and Brxzyzeniski and
Nuland and all the rest? The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight? Do
they get to run us all into the grave, because we Policy Addicts go
along with the insane "logic" of whatever the hell it is that
"NATO" in all its idiotic parts is doing? Was the Crimea a casus
belli? though it seems to people who are deep in the Think Tanks
think EVERYTHING is a casus belli, and never ask any questions of
the sorts that Sun Tzu counseled ought to be asked, long before and
at every point in any "war" action
I know, money rules, Empire is inevitable and so very seductive
to have all that Power ("and not use it") especially if one is paid
in gelt or psycho-satisfaction to go all grim-visages warrior in a
Game of RISK! that for some reason never ends up with one Player
owning the entire world
This disabled Vietnam vet offers a big FU, to all the
Fokkers, armchair or ergonomic Battlespace Manager or Foggy Bottom
delicate or Langley overstuffed chairs, who are driving the vast
bus we all have to ride in off the cliff, all happy with their
impunity and immunity and faux self-created, self-p[rolonged,
terminal Grand Responsibilities.
Show how smart you are, send another 300 Marines to Iraq,
and another 300 to Notagainistan, for "we won't say combat"
involvement in the futility and corruption and destabilization and
destruction there Who will be the last Troop, and the last
"noncombatant," to die in this old-as-civilization idiocy? Who
Fokking cares, really, as long as it is one of those "Enemies "
No, that was precisely what was promised; But promises means nothing,
and frankly,
Gorbachev must have been either stupid or traitor to
accept such promises in lieu of real and tangible concessions.
In my view, the biggest mistake was not NATO expansion but rather
the looting of the Soviet Union. If the major soviet republics was to be
integrated within the western alliance more or less in the same manner as
Germany, the situation today would have been very different. Instead of
sucking soviet resources over a longer term like Germany does to the EU,
west was salivating on the prospects of literally new loots thus awaken
the pray.
That made the people of Russia and many others feel disgust, and
they resisted at the first opportunity they got. Now, there is no way
Russia can be put under the American influence. This is all more
remarkable because most Russians had admired the empire so much thus
putting them under American umbrella would have been so easy. Putin, for
example, was ready to play ball with the west but their insistence on
total dominance disgusted even him. I am sure the global elite recognizes
this but some still cannot get over how they let this pass.
Putin still supports neoliberalism but this too will pass as
neoliberal order is controlled by New York bankers and only way out is
another world order, which is exactly what Russia and China started
building. Departure of Russia from neoliberal order, I believe, will seal
the fate of neoliberalism as it just did it exactly 100 years ago.
You are plain wrong. Just read what Gorbachev has to say on the
subject – and he was there. NATO expansion was not expected by the
Russians, is considered a betrayal of promises, and is to a large extent
responsible for the renewed sense of paranoia in Europe and Russia.
Whether US military was against it is irrelevant (or whether Vysehrad
four lobbied for it) – it was done and it damaged relations. And it
continues to do damage – as the buildup of troops and equipment has
escalated.
I think Lasch's
The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of
Democracy
, first published in 1994 shortly after his death, is a
forgotten classic. Lasch was well ahead of his time in foreseeing how the
rise of technocratic, transnational elites would dissolve the social
contract that in the postwar era had kept the interests of haves and have
nots at least loosely aligned and lubricated a considerable degree of
wealth transfer from the former to the latter, which in turn would lead
to socio-economic polarization.
If he were alive today I'm sure he would be appalled by a President
Trump even as he recognized that this was the logical culmination of the
trends he himself had identified all those years ago.
Lasch was notable for other trenchant social criticism, including
identifying narcissism as the dominant trait of the postwar American
psyche and challenging some tenets of second wave feminism. As befits a
fearless and original thinker he didn't fit neatly into any established
intellectual paradigm.
He died on February 14 1994 and now I think of him every Valentine's
Day. I guess I'm something of an admirer.
Globalisation was accompanied by an ideology, neoliberalism, that was
guaranteed to fail. The problems were there at the start but were ignored,
it was always going to go wrong in exactly the way it has.
Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy".
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive
ideas. Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the
many. Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't work.
The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton Freidman and the
University of Chicago. It was so radical they first tried it in a military
dictatorship in Chile, it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took
death squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was an ethnic
cleansing of anyone who still showed signs of any left wing thinking.
It was tried in a few other places in South America using similar
techniques. It then did succeed in a democracy but only by tricking the
people into thinking they were voting for something else, severe oppression
was needed when they found out what they were getting.
Margaret Thatcher bought these ideas to the West and the plan to
eliminate the welfare state has only recently been revealed. Things had to
be done slowly in the West due to that bothersome democracy. The West has
now seen enough.
It was implemented far more brutally in the developing world where Milton
Freidman's "Chicago Boys" were the henchmen of "The Washington Consensus".
The IMF and World Bank acted as enforcers insisting on neoliberal
conditionalities for loans.
Global markets punished those not towing the neoliberal line and kept
nations in their place. As Nelson Mandela was released from prison the South
African Rand fell 10%, someone like this was going to be pushing up wage
costs and would be bad for the economy.
Looking back it was a grand folly of an international elite whose greed
overcame even a modicum of common sense.
Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" will take you through all the gory
details.
Underlying neo-liberalism is a different economics, neoclassical
economics, which is heavily biased towards the wealthy. Inequality and a
lack of demand in the global economy were also guaranteed from the start.
The world is saturated in debt and if rates rise this is going to blow
the neo-liberal experiment sky high.
Neo-liberalism is a system that uses debt to keep going and the world
has nearly maxed out. It's underlying neoclassical economics uses
spurious assumptions about money and debt and so no one sees the problems
coming.
2008 – "How did that happen?"
Twelve people were officially recognised by Bezemer in 2009 as having
seen 2008 coming, announcing it publicly beforehand and having good
reasoning behind their predictions. They all thought the problem came
from excessive debt levels.
Having all our mainstream experts using spurious assumptions about
money and debt, doesn't actually stop the whole thing blowing up.
Attributing 2008 to a "black swan" has allowed us to think more debt
can be used to solve a debt crisis, needless to say the debt levels are
much higher than 2008 and excessive debt has now spread through emerging
markets. China and emerging markets are not going to provide an engine of
growth next time.
The other day I was watching a particularly apocalyptic video from
Peter Schiff, he is no fool, he was one of the twelve that saw 2008
coming. Steve Keen is another one of the twelve and he is of the same
opinion.
Most people don't realise money = debt, all the money in existence has
a corresponding amount of debt.
We can see what Steve Keen saw by looking at the US money supply.
Aha, but the bubble is beside the point. The entire US economy from
Clinton onward is BASED on bubbles of one type or another to create
the feeling of (false) wealth. Bubbles are INTENDED because it fools
many into thinking, as they ride upon the inflation of the bubble,
that they are making bank. Clinton's economy "boom" was based on
telling people that their homes are "investments" that they need to
borrow against to buy "stuff". Lots of stuff. FEEL rich while you
actually go deeply into debt on a bubble-inflated home equity loan.
Can't repeat the real estate bubble again and again so the Fed
feeds a different bubble each cycle. Real estate this cycle, stocks
the next, etc.
Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually
exclusive ideas.
Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many.
Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.
Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't
work.
This statement depends on who the mutually exclusive ideas are
intended to work for. They worked spectacularly for the Davos Class.
Which I might add, was the class that came up with the idea. They sold a
lie that the media - who is wholly controlled by them - took hook line
and sinker. That the establishment media are peddling the fake news angle
so vociferously is telling. But the problem in my mind isn't "fake news"
per se. It is the uncritical peddling of fake ideologies.
I think a quote from the 2016 Mann Booker Prizewinner's "The Sellout"
by Paul Beatty is instructive on this point: "People eat the shit you
shovel them." And man alive, have the 99% ever been shoveled some shit in
the "Age of Great Expectations."
And btw - thanks for the link Yves. That was instructive.
Reading this reminded me of the Peace Dividend we were supposed to get in
the wake of the collapsing Soviet Union. Alas, we never got it.
We squandered a perfectly good empire on McMansions and Ford Explorers. At
least Rome got coliseums and orgies.
Age of Great Expectations brings to mind a recursive acronym, indicative
of a type of tunnel vision and failure to learn from the past, tempered by a
preternatural optimism that is thought to be in the Tocquevillian American
DNA.
Excellent article. Christopher Lasch's prescription is food for thought,
although I agree with vidimi that we have to get beyond a romantic
conception of the individual. In fact, I submit that we are in a new
baroque, dominated by religious insanity (like the first baroque with its
Spanish Inquisition and tortuous Calvinist theology), economic excesses
(just as Spain looted the Indian nations of the New World of their gold in
the first one), and individual fear.
I would caution Bacevich, who is usually better than this, and in
general: Psychobabble isn't going to get us anywhere. And I'm seeing so much
of it.
From the article:
"Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed, erratic, and with little regard
for truth, Trump was sui generis among presidential candidates."
Bacevich has never read about Andrew Jackson, who sponsored the Trail of
Tears forced on the Cherokee and the Choctaw nations? Bacevich has never
heard of Strom Thurmond's presidential run? George Wallace's presidential
run? (And let us not forget the laughable claim that Hillary Clinton was the
most qualified presidential candidate in U.S. history, except for, ohhhh,
Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.)
One problem in the analysis of U.S. history is to think of the U S of A
and of U.S. individuals as sui generis. They aren't. Vlade points out above
that the Visegrad Four (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary) were
actors in NATO expansion. Considering that Romania was an economic and
social basketcase when it acceded to the EU, I'd venture that the EU made a
mistake or three, also.
So we require more hard-headedness in analyzing our context and how
events arise. As always Bacevich is good as an analyst, and some details may
not matter in understanding the rise of Trump, but the solution also is not
yet discernible. What I would say is that the democratic mindset, which is
skeptical yet still inclined toward participation in public events is a
serious way, is in disrepair. Class warfare and endless war for empire have
caused damage.
Maybe some day people will start asking seriously what outcomes they
want from the political economy they perforce must live in. "Are you
better off today than you were XX years ago?" And maybe (not at all
likely) come up with an organizing principle (like, maybe, some iteration
of the Golden Rule?) that if at all adhered to, might lead to something
other than climate collapse or some Soylent Green or other apocalyptic
future
I know, no chance to amass a huge pile of wealth and rents and vain
attempts to overwhelm the personal pleasure centers in that kind of
future So "No Sale "
I like your golden rule idea. But I think more apt would be the
golden rule of physics: The Second Law of Thermodynamics. If economics
were truly a science, the study could not but adhere to this rule.
What's conspicuously absent from many of these "collapse of the Soviet
Union" narratives? Chernobyl.
That 1986 explosion - and the bungled disaster response - probably did
more to bring down the Soviet Union than Reagan's military buildup or
Gorbachev's moves toward reform.
Yves's two caveats are extremely important in assessing this article. I
have a couple more. The first is the omission of the glaringly obvious theft
of candidacy which occurred during the Democratic primary and did not occur
in the Republican one. And the second is the article's description of Trump
voters as " those who nurse gripes and are keen to pin the blame on someone
or something."
Then too, I will just say that the mandate so far is not a negative one
because Trump hasn't taken office yet, and in fact some positive occurrences
have seemed to be happening in the Middle East to restore several nations
there to what they had been before 'great expectations' got into the mix.
Just my two cents. Some people's great expectations are not other
people's great expectations. Mine are for a peaceful world and a restoration
of sanity between nations.
" Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence,
the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.
We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this time in an asymmetrical war
between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt.
General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet
this foe.
Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is as a man and a soldier. This background
information then provides the reader with a better perspective through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face
as well as the course of action he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.
The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy in our war with radical
Islam and other potential foes:
1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.
In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam because our nation's leadership
has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude
that understands American democracy is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled
reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five I wonder about the world we leaving
for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified
by today's radical Islamists thrives.
Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have the moral and principled leaders
to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American
people to white hot wrath who will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an outdated
notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?
As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation needs principled men and women
in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to
navigate this battlefield.
* * *
In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an educational read which will provided
me with much food for thought over the coming months. As a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as
citizens understand the problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and General
Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies gives a much needed perspective
on the subject.
stars
better, get it at your local library By
Jim Lobe on January
3, 2017
Format: Hardcover |
Verified Purchase The book is remarkably poorly written and even more poorly argued. The constant use of the pronoun "I" suggests
that Flynn wrote it, although most of its main themes and much of the language are ones that Ledeen has repeated endlessly in
books, blogs, and op-eds since 9/11 (and even before). In fact, it seems that Ledeen was the main author, and one is forced to
wonder whether Flynn even gave the manuscript a thorough read-through before it was published. If he did read and approve it,
and if he retains his position as Trump's national security adviser, then the country could be in for some serious foreign-policy
incoherence. While Trump has claimed he's against "regime change," the book comes out strongly in favor. While Trump has said
he opposes nation-building, the book says we need to completely reconstruct whole societies. ("It's not just a matter of changing
local leaders; we want to change the whole system as we used to do.") And remember, Bolivia and Nicaragua are part of the "enemy
alliance," along with Al Qaeda and ISIS, of which Iran is the "centerpiece." If you can't get enough of Islamophobia, Iranophobia,
conspiracy thinking, and what Flynn's colleagues at the Defense Intelligence Agency used to call "Flynn facts" (multiple highly
questionable assertions lack footnotes or any credible attribution), then buy this book or, better, get it at your local library.
Otherwise, just google Ledeen and head for the fever swamps.
out of 5 stars
A Disappointment By
Ed on December 28,
2016
Format: Hardcover |
Verified Purchase Responding to terrorism is an important topic and I was looking forward to reading about potential strategic
visions and tactical approaches that could be employed. This book disappointed. The first half of the book was a written account
of how great the author is. He even made being a juvenile delinquent a plus! As a veteran I have encountered many officers who are
"legends in their own minds". These pages do nothing to advance the subject of winning against terrorism.
The next section is a series of rants about how weak and worthless politicians are. Few are spared, although Lincoln and FDR were
ok. Colin Powell is also served up for criticism. General Powell is one of my heroes, a perfect example of the citizen soldier. Gen.
Flynn is the opposite whose view is that the USA's elected representatives are holding the military back from winning the war on
terror. I believe General Powell is correct.
Politicians are only responsible to the people who elect them. Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama are judged at the voting
poles. This is how free people govern themselves. Criticism from subordinates is not useful, advice is. One is insubordination and
the other is duty and loyalty. If you cannot support the elected leaders of the USA you should resign your commission, not wait to
get fired.
The final section of the book deals with the plan to defeat the radical Muslims. Gen Flynn is now our NSA to President-elect Trump.
We'll get to see if Gen. Flynn can effectively advise President Trump. Will his "maverick" streak help or hinder his efforts? Will
past insubordination reemerge when he does not get everything he proposes? Will he be able to convince Congress to take the "handcuffs"
the military to win the War on Terror? Elected representatives will stay true to the wishes of the voters and be judged by them accordingly.
As a loyal veteran and citizen, I wish nothing but the best for our country and that means wishing nothing but "HUGE" successes for
our new president and his administration, including Gen. Flynn.
2.0 out of 5 stars
simnplistic By juelanne
dalzell on December 16, 2016
Format: Hardcover |
Verified Purchase The book scared me silly. I got the impression that the author may be insane and believes everything his paranoia
is telling him. What is scary is that some of the information appears accurate and that provides enough 'proof' for the author to
make conclusions that aren't based in analytical reasoning. Due to its lack of depth or complexity the book is an easy read.
3.0 out of 5 stars
Lacking on specifics, and disappointing over all By
Adam M. Donaldson
on August 7, 2016
Format: Kindle Edition |
Verified Purchase I would give the book a 2.5 stars out of 5 but I'm limited to a three. I think the chapters describing the
links etc. between various nation states and terrorist networks was very informative and the best part of the book. I did find the
book extremely lacking though when it came to how to defeat the enemy he describes, which disappointed me because that's what this
book as billed as. The strategies given were nothing more then basic overviews of things many other people have already said. So
in that end it was even more disappointing. I also think he pays to much credit to using the word radical Islam as a strategy for
defeating the enemy since in reality it would do nothing to hurt or help our cause. But that I think was a part of a mild paranoia
that I found in the book. So in the end it's not bad, but it's no where near good. I would not recommend the book personally.
A Valuable, But Slight, Work By
A. T. Yoshida on July
27, 2016
Format: Kindle Edition |
Verified Purchase There are good pieces here, but the book just doesn't ever quite gel. I can't help but think it was largely-written
to further Gen. Flynn's Vice Presidential ambitions as much as anything else.
The problem is two-fold. First, much of what is written here is already widely-known to those with a deep interest in the subject.
In particular I think that there is a distinct lack of insight from the General's time at the DIA. In a sense I suppose that probably
can't be helped - much of what went down is probably covered by NDAs - but it leaves us with a work whose basic contents may be found
daily on any number of other forums.
On the other side, for those without a a strong grounding in this area, the book lacks enough information about the origins and
underpinnings of the Islamist war against us to be thoroughly informative.
Still, I do concur in the recommendations contained within this book and hope that the General's talents will be utilized by the
next administration.
"... War is evil. So St Augustine devised this doctrine of 'just war', standards to which US has failed since 1945. Then Obama comes up with the idea of "just peace', we should have read in detail his Nobel lecture! Neocon pap! ..."
"... If Clinton decides the peace is not just then organized murder is the detail for the week. Economies are sometime zero sum games and you can get Ike's 1953 speech for what you give up for a destroyer..... ..."
'if building aircraft carriers saved the economy in 1941, and
defenses against imaginary aliens would save the economy in
2013, it's not clear why real aircraft carriers have the
opposite effect.'
Not ALL of economics is a zero-sum game.
USING munitions destroys the economies of others.
It's not as if preparing to engage aliens is actually
going to go anywhere which leads to that, tinfoil-hat-wise.
(That may be the advantage of building expensive,
impossibly risky-to-use nuclear weapons - which also might be
of use against aliens!)
Of course, the case will be made that 'destroying
the economies of others' is also a Good Thing in the long
run.
The overriding complaint about 'economic efforts devoted to
building armaments' is that such resulting goods are of NO
civilian use.
Aside from post-war battleship tours
and the like. Aside from all the wondrous technological
developments which always ensue, but most importantly the
industrial capacity that is put to civilian use in peacetime.
War is evil. So St Augustine devised this doctrine of
'just war', standards to which US has failed since 1945. Then
Obama comes up with the idea of "just peace', we should have
read in detail his Nobel lecture! Neocon pap!
If
Clinton decides the peace is not just then organized murder
is the detail for the week. Economies are sometime zero sum
games and you can get Ike's 1953 speech for what you give up
for a destroyer.....
As long as no kid of a war plant worker goes
hungry........ or has to drive a beater when she gets 16.
I see the pentagon trough as expensive term life. For the
past 70 years the US has bet over $28T and around 100000 KIA
(probably 15000 more killed in training events) that evil
'enemies' are going to muck with Neocon's or whomever's "just
peace"*.
Since 1950 war has been a huge, more than Smedley
Butler's wars for the bankers in Central America, racket.
For the do overs and weapons bought for the sole benefit
of the trough there is only local 'welfare'.
Outside of indivisible public goods [as Arrow and others
studied] government spending is not efficient.
Where markets fail government should intervene, unless the
standard of 'justice' is profit for the rentier.
Think of it next time someone wants to dump on Iran.
Richard M. Nixon always denied it: to David Frost, to
historians and to Lyndon B. Johnson, who had the strongest
suspicions and the most cause for outrage at his successor's
rumored treachery. To them all, Nixon insisted that he had
not sabotaged Johnson's 1968 peace initiative to bring the
war in Vietnam to an early conclusion. "My God. I would never
do anything to encourage" South Vietnam "not to come to the
table," Nixon told Johnson, in a conversation captured on the
White House taping system.
Now we know Nixon lied. A newfound cache of notes left by
H. R. Haldeman, his closest aide, shows that Nixon directed
his campaign's efforts to scuttle the peace talks, which he
feared could give his opponent, Vice President Hubert H.
Humphrey, an edge in the 1968 election. On Oct. 22, 1968, he
ordered Haldeman to "monkey wrench" the initiative.
The 37th president has been enjoying a bit of a revival
recently, as his achievements in foreign policy and the
landmark domestic legislation he signed into law draw
favorable comparisons to the presidents (and president-elect)
that followed. A new, $15 million face-lift at the Nixon
presidential library, while not burying the Watergate
scandals, spotlights his considerable record of
accomplishments.
Haldeman's notes return us to the dark side. Amid the
reappraisals, we must now weigh apparently criminal behavior
that, given the human lives at stake and the decade of
carnage that followed in Southeast Asia, may be more
reprehensible than anything Nixon did in Watergate.
Nixon had entered the fall campaign with a lead over
Humphrey, but the gap was closing that October. Henry A.
Kissinger, then an outside Republican adviser, had called,
alerting Nixon that a deal was in the works: If Johnson would
halt all bombing of North Vietnam, the Soviets pledged to
have Hanoi engage in constructive talks to end a war that had
already claimed 30,000 American lives.
But Nixon had a pipeline to Saigon, where the South
Vietnamese president, Nguyen Van Thieu, feared that Johnson
would sell him out. If Thieu would stall the talks, Nixon
could portray Johnson's actions as a cheap political trick.
The conduit was Anna Chennault, a Republican doyenne and
Nixon fund-raiser, and a member of the pro-nationalist China
lobby, with connections across Asia.
"! Keep Anna Chennault working on" South Vietnam, Haldeman
scrawled, recording Nixon's orders. "Any other way to monkey
wrench it? Anything RN can do."
Nixon told Haldeman to have Rose Mary Woods, the
candidate's personal secretary, contact another nationalist
Chinese figure - the businessman Louis Kung - and have him
press Thieu as well. "Tell him hold firm," Nixon : .
Bombs and mines from the Nixon years of the War in Vietnam
were cleaned from neighboring Laos and Cambodia for years
after the war ended and are still unfortunately found today.
"... Chickenhawks like you should better be careful what they wish for. With the election of Hillary we would be on the brink of not "cold", but "hot" war, starting in Syria. But chickenhawks like you prefer other people to die to their imperial complex of inferiority. ..."
"... In other words, all you funny "Putin Poodle", "Putin is a kleptocrat", etc noises is just a testament of the inferiority complex of a typical neoliberal chickenhawk. Much like was the case with Hillary. ..."
Why don't you just
buy m16, some ammunition and go to Syria to prove your point and take revenge for Hillary fiasco.
Chickenhawks like you should better be careful what they wish for. With the election of Hillary
we would be on the brink of not "cold", but "hot" war, starting in Syria. But chickenhawks like you
prefer other people to die to their imperial complex of inferiority.
In other words, all you funny "Putin Poodle", "Putin is a kleptocrat", etc noises is just a testament
of the inferiority complex of a typical neoliberal chickenhawk. Much like was the case with Hillary.
Seven years after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen
international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," despite having been in office for less
than one year and having pretty much no actual, tangible foreign diplomacy accomplishments at the
time, President Obama will depart the White House having dropped 26,171 bombs on foreign countries
around the world in 2016, 3,027 more than 2015.
It's now democratic socialists versus progressive
neoliberals.
The progressive neoliberals have failed the world over.
Hillary Clinton, a competent, knowledgeable establishment
politician, lost to a laughable reality TV star clown.
Think about it. Mull it over in your mind. It's hilarious
how cocky and confident the neoliberals were throughout the
election. It's amazing how wrong they were. Trump's victory
is almost worth it. Not quite.
Published on
Friday, February 26, 2016
by Common Dreams
"We Are Not Denmark": Hillary Clinton and Liberal American
Exceptionalism
by Matthew Stanley
Several months removed, it now seems clear that the
Democratic debate on October 13 contained an illuminating
moment that has come to embody the 2016 Democratic Primary
and the key differences between its two candidates.
Confronting Bernie Sanders's insistence that the United
States has much to learn from more socialized nations,
particularly the Nordic Model, Hillary Clinton was direct: "I
love Denmark. But we are not Denmark. We are the United
States of America."
The implication behind this statement-the reasoning that
ideas and institutions (in this case social and economic
programs) that are successful in other nations are somehow
practically or ideologically inconsistent with Americans and
American principles-speaks to a longstanding sociopolitical
framework that has justified everything from continental
expansion to the Iraq War: American exceptionalism. Rooted in
writings of Alexis de Tocqueville and the mythology of John
Winthrop's "City Upon a Hill," the notion that the history
and mission of the United States and the superiority of its
political and economic traditions makes it impervious to same
the forces that influence other peoples has coursed through
Abraham Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address," the Cold War rhetoric
of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and the foreign policy
declarations of Barack Obama.
espite particular historical trends-early and relatively
stable political democracy, birthright citizenship, the
absence of a feudal tradition, the relative weakness of class
consciousness-historians have critiqued this "American
exceptionalism" as far more fictive than physical, frequently
citing the concept as a form of state mythology. Although
different histories lead naturally to historical and perhaps
even structural dissimilarities, America's twenty-first
century "exceptions" appear as dubious distinctions: gun
violence, carbon emissions, mass incarceration, wealth
inequality, racial disparities, capital punishment, child
poverty, and military spending.
et even at a time when American exceptionalism has never
been more challenged both by empirically-validated social and
economic data and in public conversation, the concept
continues to play an elemental role in our two-party
political discourse. The Republican Party is, of course,
awash with spurious, almost comically stupid dialogue about a
mythic American past-"making America great again"-the racial
and ethnic undertones of which are unmistakable. Those same
Republicans have lambasted Obama and other high profile
Democrats for not believing sufficiently in their brand of
innate, transhistoric American supremacy.
But this Americentrism is not the sole province of the
GOP. We need look no further than bipartisan support for the
military-industrial complex and the surveillance state to see
that national exceptionalism, and its explicit
double-standard toward other nations, resides comfortably
within the Democratic Party as well. Russian President
Vladimir Putin and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa
censured Obama's use of the term in the fall of 2013, with
the latter likening it to the "chosen race" theories of Nazi
Germany. Hyperbole notwithstanding, academics often do
associate American exceptionalism with military conquest. It
does, after all, have deep roots in the Manifest Destiny
ethos that spurred the Mexican War, drove continental and
trans-Pacific expansion, and emerged as a paternalistic
justification for voluminous military interventions in Latin
America, Africa, and the Middle East. As Dick Cheney
suggests, "the world needs a powerful America." In this
unilateral missionizing zeal Clinton proves most typical. As
historian Michael Kazin argues in a recent piece for The
Nation: "Hillary Clinton is best described as a liberal. Like
every liberal president (and most failed Democratic nominees)
since Wilson, she wants the United States to be the dominant
power in the world, so she doesn't question the massive sums
spent on the military and on the other branches of the
national-security state."
But Clinton's brand of American exceptionalism goes beyond
the issue of American military dominion and into the policy
potentials of mid-century social liberalism and, more
specifically, the neoliberalism that has since replaced it.
Indeed, since George McGovern's failed presidential bid of
1972, neoliberals, moving decidedly rightward on economic
issues, have consistently employed exceptionalist code to
fight off movements, ideas, and challengers from the left.
The victims include leftist efforts toward both American
demilitarization and the expansion of a "socialistic" welfare
state. Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have
denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity"
and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other
developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone
explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's
"Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no
socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She
is smart enough to know that women in the United States
endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity
than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she
was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's
denunciation of the idea that the United States should look
more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines
within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian
liberalism and Sandersite leftism. It also revealed a more
clandestine strain of American exceptionalism common among
liberals and the Democratic Party elite in which
"opportunity" serves as a stand-in for wider egalitarian
reform. As Elizabeth Bruenig highlighted in The New Republic:
"Since getting ahead on one's own grit is such a key part of
the American narrative, it's easy to see how voters might be
attracted to Clinton's opportunity-based answer to our social
and economic woes, though it leaves the problem of inequality
vastly under-addressed. Indeed, a kind of American
exceptionalism does seem to underpin much opportunity-focused
political rhetoric."
This preference for insider politics (rather than mass
movements involving direct action) and limited, means-tested
social programs speaks to a broader truth about modern
liberalism: it functions in a way that not only doesn't
challenge the basic tenets of American exceptionalism, it
often reinforces them. Whether vindicating war and torture
and civil liberties violations, talking past the War on Drugs
and the carceral state, or exhibiting coolness toward the
type of popular protest seen during of Occupy Wall Street,
with its direct attacks on a sort of American Sonderweg,
establishment Democrats are adept at using a more "realistic"
brand of Americentrism to consolidate power and anchor the
party in the status quo. Now the 2016 Democratic Primary has
seen progressive ideas including universal health care,
tuition-free college, and a living minimum wage, all
hallmarks of large swaths of the rest of the developed world,
delegitimized through some mutation of liberal exceptionalist
thinking. These broadminded reforms are apparently off
limits, not because they are not good ideas (though opponents
make that appraisal too), but because somehow their
unachievability is exceptional to the United States.
All this is not to exclude (despite his "democratic
socialist" professions) Sanders's own milder brand of
"America first," most evident in his economic nationalism,
but to emphasize that American exceptionalism and the logical
and practical dangers it poses exist in degrees across a
spectrum of American politics. Whatever his nationalistic
inclinations, Sanders's constant reiteration of America's
need to learn from and adapt to the social, economic, and
political models of other nations demonstrates an
ethno-flexibility rarely seen in American major party
politics. "Every other major country " might as well be his
official campaign slogan. This bilateral outlook does not fit
nearly as neatly within Clinton's traditional liberal
paradigm that, from defenses of American war and empire to
the, uses American exceptionalism tactically, dismissing its
conservative adherents as nationalist overkill yet quietly
exploiting the theory when politically or personally
expeditious.
In looking beyond our national shores and domestic
origin-sources for fresh and functional policy, Sanders seems
to grasp that, from the so-called "foreign influences" of the
Republican free soil program or Robert La Follette's
Wisconsin Idea or even Lyndon Johnson's Great Society,
American high politics have been at their most morally
creative and sweepingly influential not only when swayed by
direct action and mass movements, but also when they are less
impeded by the constraints of ethnocentrism and
exceptionalism. The "We are not Denmark" sentiment might
appear benign, lacking as it does the bluster of Republican
claims to national supremacy and imaginary "golden age" pasts
and what economist Thomas Picketty has termed a "mythical
capitalism." But it is the "seriousness" and very gentility
of liberal Americentrism that underscores the power,
omnipresence, and intellectual poverty of cultural dismissal.
"I still believe in American exceptionalism," Clinton has
proclaimed in pushing for U.S. military escalation in Syria.
Indeed she does, and it is by no means relegated to the
sphere of foreign policy.
"Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have
denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity"
and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other
developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone
explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's
"Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no
socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She
is smart enough to know that women in the United States
endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity
than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she
was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's
denunciation of the idea that the United States should look
more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines
within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian
liberalism and Sandersite leftism."
Is it better to ignore
this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to
debate the issues in a polite and congenial manner?
Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum
regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that
don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.
And then our Miss Manners Chris Lowrey complains about all
sides.
One thing about this website is
that we don't have a "like" button. Since expressing simple
agreement is not very interesting, most people don't do it
and the interactions that do occur are critical. That creates
the impression that people are more uniformly hostile to one
another than they probably are.
Both Clinton's are war mongering corporatists apologizing for
banksters, same mold as Obama who is a better con artist than
HRC!
That democrats are "soft" on the war trough is false
news since 1960. But a good scam to get pro abortion faux
liberals to support the war machine's trough.
Funding planned parenthood does not make war criminals
liberal.
It is obvious to me at
least that PE Trump
will force immediate
detente with Russia,
weaken NATO, and
substitute China as
the bogey man to
prepare to battle,
economically,
politically, and
militarily.
Watch
for it.
Of course, that
also entails tossing
US Allies in Europe
under the bus b/c
Putin wants more
influence and control
over nations on his
borders than the USA
and NATO have allowed
following the break up
of the USSR both
economically and
militarily.
Not so sure how the
experienced foreign
policy Hawks, mostly
retired Generals, will
go along with letting
Putin's Russia out of
NATO's cage.
Should be
interesting if Trump
gets them to go along
with is plans to free
Putin and make him and
Russia friends with
the US again.
Pork for defense contractors and WWC workers with little or
no legitimate defense value ... sounds like the kind of thing
Trump will support enthusiastically.
There was not one US
navy carrier on 'patrol' anywhere for the past week.
Littoral Combat Ships are useless too small too little
keel, and no good in open water.
The CVN 78 is a dinosaur...........
Look how those CV/CVN's did off Vietnam for 7 years!
ilsm -> ilsm...
, -1
The faux 'threats' must have decided to be nice to the
empire:
"For the next week, not only will there be no U.S.
Navy aircraft
carrier in the Middle East, but there will be no American
aircraft
carriers deployed at sea anywhere else in the world, despite
a host
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
© REUTERS/
Is Trump Planning a Major US Escalation in Yemen?
However, just stepped up military aid could not bring any rapid end to the conflict
that has already cost many thousands of lives, Kiriakou cautioned.
© REUTERS/ Anees Mahyoub
Desperate Measures: Yemenis Repair and Modernize Soviet Missiles to Counter
Saudi Coalition Attacks
President Donald Trump campaigned in the 2016 presidential election on the pledge
that he would end the drain of US wealth poured into fighting unwinnable wars
across the Middle East that had cost the United States trillions of dollars in the
21st century.
