“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”
― Ian Fleming
After three following event there is no doubt that Thump became a neocon stooge with the only fotign pollicy intiiaves of
his own that can be attributied to his own impulsivity and lack of international experience. Those three event are
as following
The initial conversion happened just three month after inauguration and full evolution into neocon took slightly more
then a year.
Attack in Syria after
Khan Sheikhoun gas attack was a game changer. And a sign that Trump capitulated due to the intensity of
anti-Russian hysteria. In other words Trump surrendered to the neocons. Suddenly the the
neoliberal/neocon MSM who launched the witch hunt against him after the elections are lauding him
for a senseless escalation. His plan now is just to survive, and under the implicit agreement
signed at capitulation, he can no longer control US foreign policy under any circumstances. It
is neocons who again in change of the US foreign policy. The Trump administrations motivations
appear to be purely political, defensive, dictation in conditions when he is under siege, and
extremely short term. I want to survive is tootoed on his forehead. Nikki Haley's TV remarks
that the US now thinks there can be no solution to the Syrian crisis (created by the USA) that
leaves Assad in power signify that Trump is no longer has any inflince on forerigh policy. He is a
puppet, not a puppeteer and he does not control Nikki Haley. It is Nikki Haley and her neocon
hanglers who control Trump:
It appears that US foreign policy is in turmoil and no longer well managed. The key
goal has been to keep the US dollar as a reserve currency and every state in-line
with their privately owned central bank. The petrol dollar is no longer working and
debts are out-of-control. Libya and Operation Odyssey Dawn helped bring down a
functional government but remember the first thing they did was establish a new
private central bank and get rid of an independent one. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and
Sudan still have an independent bank and people at the top don’t like that. What a
coincidence that having an independent central bank and being an enemy of America are
the same.
In any case, it looks like the US is just winging it in Syria; anything
to stop Russia, Iran, and Syria working together in peace. And make sure that central
bank ownership is changed. Chaos may not be great, but it seems to generate profits
and achieve goals for people at the top of the food chain. I do not hear much
complaining about Libya. Why not the same for Syria?
Meanwhile, an interventionist foreign policy may be getting Trump good press for the moment,
but do you honestly believe he's going to get results? I don't say that because Kushner appears
to be running foreign policy and he's completely unqualified to do so. I say it because even the
administration's wiser, more experienced foreign policy aides -- the generals Trump admires so
much -- aren't going to help him score crowd-pleasing wins.
There is little chance that the US can split Syria from Russia by staging of suporting the staged
false flag attack using sarin. While Russia is under pressure
in Kaliningrad, Crimea and Syria it has lived through way worse situation and these have always
increased its determination. So chances that Putin fold right now are slim. His couse is right: to
get rid of Islam fundamentalists in Syria even if this means preserving Assad government, as there
is no real alternative to Assad in Syria other then islamists.
The key warning sign that something is wrong is the fact that the USA hit Assad forces before any investigation, US Congress resolution, or God forbid UN Security
Council resolution. So Trump behaves exactly like previous administration, and it is clear that not
the previous dysfunctional jingoistic neoliberal elite, hell bent of the idea of global neoliberal
empire led by the USA dictates trump policies.
Of course, the USA is an exceptional nation, so it does not need any UN support.
And the reason for the existence of UN is probably as unclear to Trump as it was unclear to Bush II, but
the latter at least arranged this historical spectacle with Colin Powell.
What is interesting is that this was not the first attempt to stage a false flag operation using sarin
to get the US into action to remove Assad goverment and install jihadists in power, as already
happened in Lybia. The first was 2013 Ghouta
chemical attack
Sarin is an organophosphorus compound with the formula [(CH3)2CHO]CH3P(O)F. It can be lethal even
at very low concentrations, where death can occur within one to ten minutes after direct inhalation
of a lethal dose, due to suffocation from lung muscle paralysis, unless some antidotes, typically
atropine and an oxime, such as pralidoxime, are quickly administered. People who absorb a
non-lethal dose, but do not receive immediate medical treatment, may suffer permanent neurological
damage.
... ... ...
2004: Iraqi insurgents detonated a 155 mm shell containing binary precursors for sarin near a U.S.
convoy in Iraq. The shell was designed to mix the chemicals as it spun during flight. The detonated
shell released only a small amount of sarin gas, either because the explosion failed to mix the
binary agents properly or because the chemicals inside the shell had degraded with age. Two United
States soldiers were treated after displaying the early symptoms of exposure to sarin.[50]
2013: Ghouta chemical attack; sarin was used in an attack in the Ghouta region of the Rif Dimashq
Governorate of Syria during the Syrian civil war.[51] Varying[52] sources gave a death toll of
322[53] to 1,729.[54]
See also Herch discussion of 2013 Ghouta chemical attack
As sarin is extremely toxic anybody who approached a child killed by the gas without protective
suits should probably be dead by now unless he/she
wear full protection suit. Which was not the case. Touching the victim is enough to be dead.
That means that sarin "gas attack" hypothesis propagated by the US MSM smells with Iraq WDMs.
Also in Syria children are usually accompanied by women. There was little women
casualties (full list of causalities and whether they were locals or hostages is currently unknown).
What is known is that many victims are children.
That means that it might be a cloud of some herbicide with similar formula, but less toxic for
adults; can happen if the bomb his the storage unit ).
Now MSM downgraded the gas to chlorine (can you imaged any sovereign state air force use chorine -
based munitions, but Al Qaeda and affiliated groups do use them as well as sarin).
The last but least: the US is essentially acting as air force for Al Nusra is a questionable use of
30 million or so which those Tomahawks cost. Each cruse missile cost is about $569,000 in 1999 dollars, according to the US Navy, -- equivalent
to about $832,000 today. The cost of 50 units is the cost of a pretty nice residential complex in
the USA for 100-200 families.
BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence
service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin
from components bought in Turkey.
Even if we assume that this was a "Monica" type of attack,
to distuct from "russian probe" witch hunt, it is still very questionable act by
Trump administration. Who BTW already lost two key people which were anti-globalists. The last was Bannon.
It looks like it took Trump metamorphosed around 100 days to metamorphose into Hillary Clinton
administration ;-).
Around the same time Obama transformed is administration into Bush II administration. So Trump might
even beat the king of "bait and switch" Obama in this area.
Is this the same situation as Sadaam Hussein - "We know they've got chemical weapons, because
we've got the receipts"? It certainly seems to be the usual unfortunate situation where it's a
terrible thing for "them" to use chemical weapons and kill civilians, but nowhere near as bad
when "we" do it.
Donald Trump, the man who just over a month ago wanted to bar entry of all Syrian refugees
into the United States, now wants us to think that he cares deeply about Syrian children. I don’t
believe it.
What I do believe is that our president is a bad actor. He was a bad actor on his old television
show, and he’s still a bad actor today. And he’s a bad actor in both senses of the term, which is
to say his actions are poorly executed and morally questionable.
Addressing the nation from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, the president announced that he
had authorized “a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical
attack was launched”. Trump was referring to a chemical weapons attack on Tuesday that killed
more than 80 people, including dozens of women and children, in the rebel-held town of Khan
Sheikhun. The chemical attack had in all likelihood been carried out by the Syrian dictator
Bashar al-Assad.
Well, definitely an act of aggression and hence illegal under the UN Charter - now, who will
bring a condemning Resolution in the Security Council ? And who will vote against it, or even
veto it ?
I see the UK Government has already mindlessly agreed with the aggressive act.
But what will the US’s military strike – a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk
cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield – really accomplish?
It's pretty clear that this is Trump just being the lunatic amateur that he is, you
know the one we all worried because he had his finger on the button. He authorised
the fatally flawed Yemen raid only days after assuming office. This is Dr Trumplove
in action, there's nothing the public and his sycophantic fans would enjoy more than
a reprise of the missiles down elevator chutes that lit up our televisions in '92.
This time the war will not be televised...it will be on twitter.
Interesting that America claims to care about Arab children, while it recently killed
over 150 civilians in Iraq.
Having said that, I find it difficult not to support a targeted strike at Assad's
military bases. I would never however support an invasion or occupation of another
Arab country as we all know that would be a huge mistake; the tens of thousands of
Arabs that would die, Western military personnel put at risk and financial cost.
Assad must be stopped, but only the Syrians themselves must take the lead in
forming a new government without continued interference from the outside. Formation
of a new government at any point must be home-grown alone.
Why must Assad be stopped he is fighting the same demented loonies who have done attacks
all over Europe, including the UK. Are you saying its ok for us to kill these loonies but
not Syria.Get real.
Using gas was a terrorist attack, not a military one.
In that case, why on earth would Assad do it. It weakens his case in all respects and
strengthens his enemies.
But of course such an argument flies in the face of hawks worldwide.
The whole thing is a sad sorry affair. I'm not sure I can trust anything any side is
saying. One thing is certain is this proxy wars between Russia and the US will continue in
all shapes and form first the next 20 years at least.
One question though. Those US air strikes that killed over 100 civilians last week. Why
have they not got the same coverage as the chemical weapons? Isn't killing, killing?
Well, the deep state always wins. The idea that assad used chemical weapons (which the
country was declared free of a fee years ago) immediately after trump declared a policy of
non regime change beggars belief.
This article is calling for the grounding of Russian and syrian planes. The first action
could cause WWIII. The second would allow isis to invade Damascus.
I suppose the use of chemical weapons in 2013 in Syria was doen to the CIA and Obama?
You are probably yet another conspiracy "nut" who thinks that the gassing of the
Kurds in northern Iraq by Assad's chum Saddam was Fake News.
Are we sure it wasn't the so called rebels? It would make no sense for Assad to do this
now. Who financed the whole coup in the first place arming the 'rebels'? They are
responsible for the whole mess.
According to a poll this morning between 41% and 51% of British voters would support an
escalation even if it meant conflict with Russia. We're being turned into a country of
gurning imbeciles and if I die because of all this bollocks I'll be really pissed off.
The chances are that there will be no response of any kind. Will this drive a
President, having an unhealthy mix of behavioral problems and frustrated by failure
in his domestic policy, to take further dramatic action in order to attract attention
in the style of his spoilt brat counterpart in North Korea, Kim Jong-un?
This is a set up by the criminal regime in Washington and their servile allies in
London. I don't believe their propaganda claims about this chemical attack, and in
any case they are not interested in waiting for any evidence. They must be made to
pay a heavy price for this criminal act.
No, certainly not. I would never advocate terrorist acts against anybody. But this action
will do the US and the Western alliance no good at all and will diminish their standing in
the world. The US/UK population must hold their leaders to account over this nonsense, and
demand proof of the dubious claims over the supposed chemical attack.
I actually feel that Trump may have got this just about right. If we actually believe
that a plane from this airbase delivered a Sarin attack, then it was necessary to
prevent a repetition. But equally it was necessary to avoid the US being dragged into
a war against Assad, which so many are desperate to see happen, and it was necessary
to avoid World War 3 by avoiding killing Russians.
If the Russians, as they
probably did, warned the Syrians and few people were actually killed by this strike,
then maybe it will all calm down now, the Syrian air force won't ever use Sarin again
and can concentrate on defeating the rebels instead which, like it or not, is
probably the quickest route to peace.
I have to question whether or not it was actually Assad who committed the attack, why would
he risk retaliation from the US when he is currently winning the Syrian Civil war
Agreed the main thing it shows is a kneejerk reaction. Incredibly dangerous from a US
president but perhaps not unexpected.
Even if Assad needs to be removed the idea as well
that Trump has a post regime plan to do that is laughable.
We have seen what happened in Iraq and Libya when bad dictators were overthrown and a
bad situation ended up much worse in terms of a replacement by militant Islamist groups.
Unfortunately what we have here is ISIS 1 (Trump o.g), Commonsense and sanity 0
But if the alleged planes carrying chemical weapons came from Homs that just got 59 bombs,
where was the topic cloud? Weren't they suppose to have a chemical stock in this airbase ?
Strange that no chemical in sight.
1. Susan Rice – mother lode for all the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories via her
unmasking of names and wide dispersal of same, but “nothing to see here”.
I would have posted this comment below said title but, of course, no comments are
possible, just as they aren't below most of, for example, David Smith's execrable
anti-Trump 'output'.
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you
get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives,
don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take
out their families," Trump said.
Now:
“I will tell you that attack on children had a big, big impact on me,” he said. “That
was a horrible, horrible thing.”
Assad has absolutely no motive to order this attack. His forces, with Russia's assistance
have gained the upper hand in the protracted conflict with US and UK backed terrorists. Why
on earth would he do something that he knows would bring international condemnation and
likely military action from the US?
Stinks to high heaven of a false flag- the fact that global MSM had solved the crime and
broadcast the perpertrators all over global media within an hour is enough proof for me -
the stories would have had to have been pre-packaged.
Perhaps you could tell that to the Guardian writers (the "liberal
interventionists") who have been beating the war drums for years, failing to learn any
lessons from Iraq and Libya. I see no plan for the aftermath, and I see no real
consideration given to the threat of a further decline in relations with Russia.
And, do these people seriously want Trump overseeing a regime change? It would be more
chaotic than when Bush tried it in Iraq.
There are at likely two parties that are very happy about the USA attack on Syrian
airfield. They are Syrian al-Qaeda which governs Idlib province where the alleged chemical
attack happened and ISIS.
Both can count that alleging Assad for chemical attacks may get Donald Trump´s USA to
become their air force. If there is a red line, cross it and blame Assad. I think that may
be how al-Qaeda and ISIS leaders are interpreting the events.
a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at a lone
airfield – really accomplish?
That's $70 million down the drain JUST on missiles.
.
Made a certain group of shareholders owning a certain military company trading in NYSE
slightly wealthier.
.
Also, a participatory certificate for participating in a virility contest.
I thought Russian air defences were supposed to be able to shoot down tomahawk missiles.
They don't travel all that fast. Perhaps they wanted to put pressure on Assad and let them
pass.
As the missile strike have already happened ('justice' before investigation) so will there
be an independent investigation about what was the cause of the gas leakage ?
The usual suspects, those actually responsible for false flag unleashing chemical weapons,
have apparently achieved only a limited response from el trumpo... and one unlikely to
satisfy their lust ultimately to bring down the Syrian government. This action designed as
a stage to that end to uncouple trumpo and putin...
Trump bowed to NeoCon pressure. He was supposed to be different. But then so was Obama.
300,000 people have died! Were those killed by bombs any less tragic? Who is funding,
arming and supporting ISIS? It's not about these children it's about anti Assad/Iran/Russia
influence in the region. Again, 300,000 have died already!
"... Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes ..."
"There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold."
– William Shakespeare
Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to
see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us
by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man.
It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives
of just this one person. The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an
essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was
meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that
is exactly what we should not do.
In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes
the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with
what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of 'official
government statements'.
Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what
caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.
An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows
It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh would announce the independence of Indochina.
That on the very day that one of the most destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its doorstep.
Churchill would announce his "Iron Curtain" against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there was no turning back at that point. The
world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to
war against the Viet Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.
In a previous paper I wrote titled
"On Churchill's Sinews
of Peace" , I went over a major re-organisation of the American government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of
Truman's de facto presidency. Recall that there was an attempted military coup d'état, which was
exposed by General Butler in a public address in 1933,
against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year. One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy
corners for how Roosevelt would organise the government.
One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau
that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared
over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the
internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National
Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as
the President's principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.
" In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC)
Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations
and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions , provided they had been directed to do so
by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces
were directed to "provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA" as an official function . "
What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the
foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the
President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's policies.
An Inheritance of Secret Wars
" There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. "
– Sun Tzu
On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States. Along with inheriting the responsibility
of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.
JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew where he stood on foreign matters
and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years. Kennedy would inherit the CIA
secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's
March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000
man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.
This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the
military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been
subject to election or judgement by the people. It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office,
and the limitations of a President's power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.
Within three months into JFK's term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist
history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a
decisive victory for Castro's Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for
the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because,
had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed. That the CIA and military were
against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility
as a President in his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst
a Cold War.
What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers
from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro's last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against
an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro's last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro's threat, without
the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA's plan for Cuba.
Kennedy's order for the airstrike on Castro's jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge
Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade's B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In
addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was unbelievably out
of the country on the day of the landings.
Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this situation:
" Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited
the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an "air cover" position written into the
official invasion plan The "air cover" story that has been created is incorrect. "
As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the
responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell
Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was
due to Bundy's telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy Director) that cancelled the President's air strike order.
Kennedy had them.
Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because
of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum
#55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Prouty
states,
" When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert
operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin. "
If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy
Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.
In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from American shores. Soviet ships with more
missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up turning around last minute. Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret
deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms
of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.
NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a policy decision " to withdraw 1,000
military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963 " and further stated that " It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of
U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965. " The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S.
TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY '65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American people.
This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin.
Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but,
more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d'état that it was and is . The CIA showed what lengths
it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans
at the time, Jim Garrison's
book . And the excellently
researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK")
Through the Looking Glass
On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy's murder, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of
Kennedy's policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War
and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.
The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy's death, lasting a total
of 20 years for Americans.
Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force
on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold
War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia
and China. Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed
by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.
It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran
needed to occur before Russia and China could be taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency
against the CIA fueled "communist-insurgency" of Indochina. This is how today's terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect
CIA formula for an endless bloodbath.
Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign
and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie
Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly
to 'pay the price' .
Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S. President takes onus on it, I would
not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the case, or the full story. Just as I would not take the statements of President
Rouhani accepting responsibility for the Iranian military shooting down 'by accident' the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176
civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence, but rather that there is very likely
something else going on here.
I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad
to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a
compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President
alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.
One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC as "terrorist" occurring in April
2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC
at the time. This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001 AUMF, where the US military
can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani's
assassination and Bolton went so far as to tweet "Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran." Bolton has also made it
no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible impeachment trial.
Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown
conference recently, but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that
though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.", his training under the CIA was
the very opposite, stating " I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long
pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment. "
Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country.
And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position
to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes .
". . . the CIA holds no allegiance to any country." But they sure kiss the *** of the financial sociopaths who write their
paychecks and finance the black ops.
Fletcher Prouty's book The Secret Team is a must read... he was on the inside and watched the formation of the permanent team
established in the late 50s that assumed the power of the president.
Look at who the OSS recruited - Ivy League Skull and Bones types from rich families that made their fortunes in often questionable
ventures.
If you're the patriarch of some super wealthy family wouldn't you be thrilled to have younger family members working for the
nation's intelligence agencies? Sort of the ultimate in 'inside information'. Plus these families had experience in things like
drug smuggling, human trafficking and anything else you can imagine..... While the Brits started the opium trade with China, Americans
jumped right in bringing opium from Turkey.
Didn't take long before the now CIA became owned by the families whose members staffed it.
One major aspect pertaining American involvment in Veitnam was something like 90% of the rubber produced Globally came from
the region.
It is more diverse now, being 3rd, with the association revealing that in 2017, Vietnam earned US$2.3 billion from export of
1.4 million tonnes of natural rubber, up 36% in value and 11.4% in volume year on year.
Rockfellers formed the OSS then the CIA which is the brute force for the CFR which they also run and own. The bankers run y
our country and bought and blackmailed all your politicians... Only buttplug and pedo's get to be in charge now folks.... and
some 9th circle witches of course...
Pompeo has just four terms in the House of Representives befor getting postions of Director of CIA (whichsuggests previous involvement
with CIA) and then paradoxically the head of the State Department, He retired from the alry in the rank of comptain and never participated
in any battles. He serves only in Germany, and this can be classified as a chickenhawk. He never performed any dyplomatic duries in
hs life and a large part of his adult life (1998-2006) was a greddy military contractor.
1. It mentions
that it aimed at "deterring future Iranian attack plans". This however is very vague. Future is not the same as imminent which is
the time based test required under international law. (1)
2. Overall, the statement places far greater emphasis on past activities and violations allegedly commuted by Suleimani. As such
the killing appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self defense.
3. The notion that Suleimani was "actively developing plans" is curious both from a semantic and military standpoint. Is it sufficient
to meet the test of mecessity and proportionality?
Bolton is a typical "Full Spectrum Dominance" hawk, a breed of chickenhawks that recently
proliferated in Washinton corridors of power and which are fed by MIC.
Notable quotes:
"... the way the IRGC came to be designated as an FTO is itself predicated on a lie. ..."
"... The person responsible for this lie is President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton, who while in that position oversaw National Security Council (NSC) interagency policy coordination meetings at the White House for the purpose of formulating a unified government position on Iran. Bolton had stacked the NSC staff with hardliners who were pushing for a strong stance. But representatives from the Department of Defense often pushed back . During such meetings, the Pentagon officials argued that the IRGC was "a state entity" (albeit a "bad" one), and that if the U.S. were to designate it as a terrorist group, there was nothing to stop Iran from responding by designating U.S. military personnel or CIA officers as terrorists. ..."
"... The memoranda on these meetings, consisting of summaries of the various positions put forward, were doctored by the NSC to make it appear as if the Pentagon agreed with its proposed policy. The Defense Department complained to the NSC that the memoranda produced from these meetings were "largely incorrect and inaccurate" -- "essentially fiction," a former Pentagon official claimed. ..."
"... This was a direct result of the bureaucratic dishonesty of John Bolton. Such dishonesty led to a series of policy decisions that gave a green light to use military force against IRGC targets throughout the Middle East. ..."
President Trump's decision to assassinate Qassem Soleimani back in January took the United
States to the brink of war with Iran.
Trump and his advisors contend that Soleimani's death was necessary to protect American
lives, pointing to a continuum of events that began on December 27, when a rocket attack on an
American base in Iraq killed a civilian translator. That in turn prompted U.S. airstrikes
against a pro-Iranian militia, Khati'ab Hezbollah, which America blamed for the attack.
Khati'ab Hezbollah then stormed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in protest. This reportedly
triggered the assassination of Soleimani and a subsequent Iranian retaliatory missile strike on
an American base in Iraq. The logic of this continuum appears consistent except for one
important fact -- it is all predicated on a lie.
On the night of December 27, a pickup truck modified
to carry a launchpad capable of firing 36 107mm Russian-made rockets was used in an attack
on a U.S. military compound located at the K-1 Airbase in Iraq's Kirkuk Province. A total of 20
rockets were loaded onto the vehicle, but only 14 were fired. Some of the rockets struck an
ammunition dump on the base, setting off a series of secondary explosions. When the smoke and
dust cleared, a civilian interpreter was dead and
several other personnel , including four American servicemen and two Iraqi military, were
wounded. The attack appeared timed to
disrupt a major Iraqi military operation targeting insurgents affiliated with ISIS.
The area around K-1 is populated by Sunni Arabs, and has long been considered a bastion of
ISIS ideology, even if the organization itself
was declared defeated inside Iraq back in 2017 by then-prime minister Haider al Abadi. The
Iraqi counterterrorism forces based at K-1 consider the area around the base an ISIS sanctuary
so dangerous that they only enter in large numbers.
For their part, the Iraqis had been warning their U.S. counterparts for more than a month
that ISIS was planning attacks on K-1. One such report, delivered on November 6, using
intelligence dating back to October, was quite specific: "ISIS terrorists have endeavored to
target K-1 base in Kirkuk district by indirect fire (Katyusha rockets)."
Another report, dated December 25, warned that ISIS was attempting to seize territory to the
northeast of K-1. The Iraqis were so concerned that on December 27, the day of the attack, they
requested that the U.S. keep functional its
tethered aerostat-based Persistent Threat Detection System (PTSD) -- a high-tech
reconnaissance balloon equipped with multi-mission sensors to provide long endurance
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) and communications in support of U.S. and
Iraqi forces.
Instead, the U.S. took the PTSD down for maintenance, allowing the attackers to approach
unobserved.
The Iraqi military officials at K-1 immediately suspected ISIS as the culprit behind the
attack. Their logic was twofold. First, ISIS had been engaged in nearly daily attacks in the
area for over a year, launching rockets, firing small arms, and planting roadside bombs.
Second, according
to the Iraqis , "The villages near here are Turkmen and Arab. There is sympathy with Daesh
[i.e., ISIS] there."
As transparent as the Iraqis had been with the U.S. about their belief that ISIS was behind
the attack, the U.S. was equally opaque with the Iraqis regarding whom it believed was the
culprit. The U.S. took custody of the rocket launcher, all surviving ordnance, and all warhead
fragments from the scene.
U.S. intelligence analysts viewed the attack on K-1 as part of a continuum of attacks
against U.S. bases in Iraq since early November 2019. The first attack took place on November
9,
against the joint U.S.-Iraqi base at Qayarrah , and was very similar to the one that
occurred against K-1 -- some 31 107mm rockets were fired from a pickup truck modified to carry
a rocket launchpad. As with K-1, the forces located in Qayarrah were engaged in ongoing
operations targeting ISIS, and the territory around the base was considered sympathetic to
ISIS. The Iraqi government attributed the attack to unspecified "terrorist" groups.
The U.S., however, attributed the attacks to Khati'ab Hezbollah, a Shia militia incorporated
with the Popular Mobilization Organization (PMO), a pro-Iranian umbrella organization that had
been incorporated into the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. The PMO
blamed the U.S. for a series of drone strikes against its facilities throughout the summer
of 2019.
The feeling among the American analysts was that the PMO attacked the bases as a form of
retaliation.
The U.S.
launched a series of airstrikes against Khati'ab Hezbollah bases and command posts in Iraq
and Syria on December 29, near the Iraqi city of al-Qaim. These attacks were carried out
unilaterally, without any effort to coordinate with America's Iraqi counterparts or seek
approval from the Iraqi government.
Khati'ab Hezbollah units had seized al-Qaim from ISIS in November 2017, and then crossed
into Syria, where they defeated ISIS fighters dug in around the Syrian town of al-Bukamal. They
were continuing to secure this strategic border crossing when they were bombed on December
29.
Left unsaid by the U.S. was the fact that the al-Bukamal-al Qaim border crossing was seen as
a crucial "land bridge," connecting Iran with Syria via Iraq. Throughout the summer of
2019, the U.S. had been watching as Iranian engineers, working with Khati'ab Hezbollah,
constructed a sprawling base that straddled both Iraq and Syria. It was this base, and not
Khati'ab Hezbollah per se, that was the reason for the American airstrike. The objective in
this attack was to degrade Iranian capability in the region; the K-1 attack was just an excuse,
one based on the lie that Khati'ab Hezbollah, and not ISIS, had carried it out.
The U.S. had long condemned what it called Iran's "malign intentions" when it came to its
activities in Iraq and Syria. But there is a world of difference between employing tools of
diplomacy to counter Iranian regional actions and going kinetic. One of the reasons the U.S.
has been able to justify attacking Iranian-affiliated targets, such as the al-Bukamal-al-Qaim
complex and Qassem Soleimani, is that the Iranian entity associated with both -- the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC -- has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization (FTO), and as such military attacks against it are seen as an extension of the
ongoing war on terror. Yet the way the IRGC came to be designated as an FTO is itself
predicated on a lie.
The person responsible for this lie is President Trump's former national security
adviser John Bolton, who while in that position oversaw National Security Council (NSC)
interagency policy coordination meetings at the White House for the purpose of formulating a
unified government position on Iran. Bolton had stacked the NSC staff with hardliners who were
pushing for a strong stance. But
representatives from the Department of Defense often pushed back . During such meetings,
the Pentagon officials argued that the IRGC was "a state entity" (albeit a "bad" one), and that
if the U.S. were to designate it as a terrorist group, there was nothing to stop Iran from
responding by designating U.S. military personnel or CIA officers as terrorists.
The memoranda on these meetings, consisting of summaries of the various positions put
forward, were doctored by the NSC to make it appear as if the Pentagon agreed with its proposed
policy. The Defense Department complained to the NSC that the memoranda produced from these
meetings were "largely
incorrect and inaccurate" -- "essentially fiction," a former Pentagon official
claimed.
After the Pentagon "informally" requested that the NSC change the memoranda to accurately
reflect its position, and were denied, the issue was bumped up to Undersecretary of Defense
John Rood. He then formally requested that the memoranda be corrected. Such a request was
unprecedented in recent memory, a former official noted. Regardless, the NSC did not budge, and
the original memoranda remained as the official records of the meetings in question.
This was a direct result of the bureaucratic dishonesty of John Bolton. Such dishonesty
led to a series of policy decisions that gave a green light to use military force against IRGC
targets throughout the Middle East. The rocket attack against K-1 was attributed to an
Iranian proxy -- Khati'ab Hezbollah -- even though there was reason to believe the attack was
carried out by ISIS. This was a cover so IRGC-affiliated facilities in al-Bakumal and al-Qaim,
which had nothing to do with the attack, could be bombed. Everything to do with Iran's alleged
"malign intent." The U.S. embassy was then attacked. Soleimani killed. The American base at
al-Assad was bombarded by Iranian missiles. America and Iran were on the brink of war.
All because of a lie.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books, most
recently, Deal of the Century: How Iran
Blocked the West's Road to War (2018).
"... He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure, but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel stupid president. ..."
On the big issue though I cant help seeing Pontious Pompeo as hurling himself about the globe
tilting at windmills. He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure,
but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel
stupid president.
uncle tungsten | Feb 11 2020 22:52 utc | 30
Isn't it a good method? This way, the vassals can comply with a smile.
These demented human beings are miserable, self seeking failures by any measurement of
dignity. In a way they are possessed with "Full Spectrum Dominance" delution.
tone-deaf, arrogant speech in Munich this
weekend in which he proclaimed that "the West is winning." In the most hypocritical and absurd
section of the speech, Pompeo railed against other states' violations of sovereignty:
Look, this matters. This matters because assaults on sovereignty destabilize. Assaults on
sovereignty impoverish. Assaults on sovereignty enslave. Assaults on sovereignty are, indeed,
assaults on the very freedom that anchors the Western ideal.
Trump administration officials like talking about the importance of sovereignty almost as
much as they enjoy trampling on the sovereignty of other states. The problem with Pompeo's
sovereignty talk is that the U.S. obviously doesn't respect the sovereignty of many countries,
and almost every criticism that he levels against someone else can be turned around against the
U.S. The U.S. daily violates Syrian sovereignty with an illegal military presence. U.S. forces
remain in Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi government, and our military has repeatedly
carried out attacks inside Iraq over their government's objections in just the last two months.
The Trump administration respects sovereignty and territorial integrity so much that it has
endorsed illegal Israeli annexation of Syrian territory and it has given a green light to more
annexations in the future. It is now supporting an illegal Turkish incursion into Syria.
Pompeo said at one point:
Respect for sovereignty of nations is a secret of and central to our success. The West is
winning.
As we look back on the record of how the U.S. and our allies have behaved over the last 30
years, respect for other nations' sovereignty is not what we see. On the contrary, there has
been a series of unnecessary and sometimes illegal wars that the U.S. and its allies have waged
either to overthrow a foreign government, or to take sides in an internal conflict, or both.
The U.S. and our allies and the other countries certainly would have been better off if that
hadn't happened. Our recent record is nothing to boast about. It is typical of Pompeo that he
celebrates successes where there aren't any. He says that "the West is winning," but what
exactly have we won? The U.S. is still involved in multiple desultory conflicts, and relations
with many of our most important allies are more strained than at any time since the start of
the Iraq war. If "the West is winning," what would repeated failures look like?
Pompeo calls out economic coercion as one of the harmful things that other states do, but he
is part of an administration that has used economic warfare more than anyone else against more
targets than ever before. If the U.S. refrained from using economic coercion as one of its main
tools in trying to compel other states to do what Washington wants, the attacks on other
states' use of economic coercion might carry some weight. As things stand, Pompeo's words are
just so much wind.
The theme of Pompeo's speech is refuting criticism from allies about how the U.S. is
conducting its foreign policy, but I doubt that many Europeans in the audience were reassured
by his hectoring, triumphalist tone. It doesn't help when he is accusing many of our allies of
being fools and dupes:
When so-called Iranian moderates play the victim, remember their assassination and terror
campaigns against innocent Iranian civilians and right here on European soil itself.
When Russia suggests that Nord Stream 2 is purely a commercial endeavor, don't be fooled.
Consider the deprivations caused in the winters of 2006 and 2008 and 2009 and 2015.
When Huawei executives show up at your door, they say you'll lose out if you don't buy in.
Don't believe the hype.
Needless to say, many of our European allies have very different views on all of these
issues, and berating their position isn't going to make them agree with the Trump
administration's unreasonable demands. Pompeo wants to tout the virtues of sovereignty, but as
soon as our allies take decisions that displease him and Trump he castigates them for it.
Respecting the sovereignty and independence of other states includes respecting their right to
make decisions on policy that our government doesn't like. Of course, Pompeo would rather have
our allies behave like vassals and expects other partners to obey as if they are colonies.
Behind all the sovereignty rhetoric is an unmistakable desire to dictate terms and force others
to do the administration's bidding. The countries that are on the receiving end of this
insufferable arrogance can see through Pompeo's words. All three of those issues touch on areas
where the U.S. insists that our allies abandon their own interests because Washington tells
them to. That is exactly the sort of heavy-handed "leadership" that our allies resent, and
Pompeo's speech will just remind them why they hate it.
"... Although the memo says one purpose of the action was to "deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces," it does not cite any specific threats. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the killing was done to prevent imminent attacks and led on like they had the intelligence to prove it. ..."
"... The New York Times recently reported that Iraqi military and intelligence officials believe the December 27 th rocket attack that killed a US contractor was likely carried out by ISIS, not the Shi'ite militia the US blamed and retaliated against. This attack led to a series of provocations that resulted in the assassination of Soleimani. Iraqi officials do not have proof that ISIS carried out the attack, but this possibility makes the US justification for killing Soleimani even more flimsy. ..."
"... Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) responded to the White House's memo in a statement on Friday, "The administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and simple." ..."
The White House
released a memo on Friday to Congress justifying the assassination of top Iranian general
Qassem Soleimani. Despite earlier claims from the administration of Soleimani and his Quds
Force planning imminent attacks on US personnel in the region, the memo uses past actions as
the justification for the killing.
The memo says President Trump ordered the assassination on January 2nd "in response to an
escalating series of attacks in preceding months by Iran and Iran-backed militias on United
States forces and interests in the Middle East region."
Although the memo says one purpose of the action was to "deter Iran from conducting or
supporting further attacks against United States forces," it does not cite any specific
threats. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the killing was done to
prevent imminent attacks and led on like they had the intelligence to prove it.
The New York Times recently
reported that Iraqi military and intelligence officials believe the December 27
th rocket attack that killed a US contractor was likely carried out by ISIS, not the
Shi'ite militia the US blamed and retaliated against. This attack led to a series of
provocations that resulted in the assassination of Soleimani. Iraqi officials do not have proof
that ISIS carried out the attack, but this possibility makes the US justification for killing
Soleimani even more flimsy.
Lawmakers from both parties criticized Trump for killing Iran's top general without
congressional approval. The memo argues that Trump had authority to order the attack under
Article II of the US Constitution, and under the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq (2002 AUMF).
Congress is taking measures to limit Trump's ability to wage war with Iran. The Senate
passed the Iran War Powers Resolution on Thursday, and the House voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF
in January.
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) responded to the White House's memo in a statement on Friday, "The
administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows
that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and
simple."
"... It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die. ..."
"... It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS. ..."
Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse
when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually
follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem
Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly
when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The
justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning
an "imminent" mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that
might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently
knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani
to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent
threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.
The incident that started the killing cycle
that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27th attack on a US base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two
Iraqis were wounded while one US contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming
that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi'ite militia called Kata'ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim
and retaliated by striking a Kata'ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The
militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the US Embassy in Baghdad,
which were also blamed on Iran by the US There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers.
Iran retaliated when it fired missiles
at American forces , injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly
shot down a passenger
jet , killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the US of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the
Iraqi Parliament also
voted to expel
all American troops.
It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out
by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic
State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack
took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni
IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.
This new development was reported in the New York Times in
an article that was
headlined "Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised
doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events." In spite of the sensational nature of the report it
generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet
another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.
Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle's
bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that
was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.
There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the
regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three
separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active
in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small
arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might
be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with US forces.
The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times
reports that the US command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata'ib based on information, including
claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The US forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with
the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the
reticence to confide in an ally.
If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration's reckless
actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking
for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted
in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times
that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is
willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by
a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it
Well, the 9/11 Commission lied about Israeli involvement, Israeli neocons lied America into Iraq, and Netanyahu lied about Iranian
nukes, so this latest news is just par for the course.
Pompeo had evidence of immediate catastrophic attack. That turned out to be a lie and plain BS.
Why should we believe Pompeo or White House or intelligence about the situation developing around 27-29 Dec ? Is it because it's
USA who is saying so?
[it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind
of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.]
The Jewish mafia stooge and fifth column, Trump, is a war criminal and an ASSASSIN.
Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official
to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.
Soleimani was a soldier involved in covert operations, Iran's most celebrated hero, and had been featured in the Iraq media
as the target of multiple Western assassination attempts. He did not have diplomatic status.
As it happens Iran did not declare war on America and America did not declare war on Iran. If Americans soldiers killed in
Iraq should not have been there in the first place, then the same goes for an Iranian soldier killed there too.
@04398436986 There is western assertion and western assertion only that Iran influences Iraqi administration and intelligence
. It can be a projection from a failing America . It can be also a valid possibility .
But lying is America's alter ego . It comes easily and as default explanation even when admitting truth would do a better job
.
Now let's focus on ISIS 's claims . Why is Ametica not taking it ( claim of ISIS) as truth and fact when USA has for last 19
years has jailed , bombed, attacked mentally retarded , caves and countries because somebody has pledged allegiance to Al Quida
or to ISIS!!!
It seems neither truth nor lies , but what suits a particular psychopath at a particular time – that becomes USA's report (
kind of unassigned sex – neither truth nor lies – take your pick and find the toilet to flush it down memory hole) – so Pompeo
lies to nation hoping no one in administration will ask . When administrative staff gets interested to know the truth , Pompeo
tells them to suck it up , move on and get ready to explain the next batch of reality manufactured by a regime and well trained
by philosopher Karl Rove
To what "conspiracy" are you referring? It's a well established fact that your ilk was, at the very least, aware that the 9/11
attacks would occur and celebrated them in broad daylight. No conspiracy theory needed. Mossad ordnance experts were living practically
next door to the hijackers. Well established fact.
It's also undeniable that the 9/11 Commission airbrushed Israeli involvement from their report. No conspiracy theory there,
either.
Same goes for Israeli neocons and their media mandarins using "faulty intel" to get their war in Iraq. "Clean Break"? "Rebuilding
America's Defenses"? Openly written and published. Judith Miller's lies? Also no conspiracy.
And Israel's own intelligence directors were undermining Netanyahu's lies on Iran. Not a conspiracy in sight.
contemplating the outcome of normal everyday competition, influenced by good & bad luck, is just too much truth for some
psychological makeups
That's one of the lamest attempts at deflection I've seen thus far, and I've seen quite a few here.
Those who deny the official version of 9/11 are in the majority now:
We've reached critical mass. Clearly, that's just too much truth for your psychological makeup. Were we really that worthy
of ignoring, your people wouldn't be working 24/7/365 to peddle your malarkey in fora of this variety.
I have thought that Trump's true impeachable crime was the illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat. Pence
should also be impeached for the botched coup in Venezuela. That was true embarrassment bringing that "El Presidente" that no
one recognizes to the SOTU.
USA is basically JU-S-A now, Jews own and run this country from top to bottom, side to side, and because of it, pretty much
run the world. China-Russia-Iran form their new "Axis of Evil" to be brought in line. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Covid-19
is a bioweapon, except not one created by China. Israel has been working on an ethnic based bioweapon for years. US sent 172 military
"athletes" to the Military World Games in Wuhan in October, 2019, two weeks before the first case of coronavirus appeared. Almost
too coincidental.
@Sean He wasn't there as a soldier -- he was there in a diplomatic role. (regardless of his official "status"). It
also appears he was lured there with intent to assaninate.
Your last para is not only terrible logic but ignores the point of the article. Iran likely was not responsible for the US deaths.
Even had it been responsible it would still not legitimate such a baldly criminal action.
[I]illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat
Lawful combat according to the Geneva Convention in which war is openly declared and fought between two countries each of which
have regular uniformed forces that do all the actual fighting is an extremely rare thing. It is all proxy forces, deniability
and asymmetric warfare in which one side (the stronger) is attacked by phantom combatants.
The Israeli PM publically alluded to the fact that Soleimani had almost been killed in the Mossad operation to kill
Imad Mughniyeh a decade ago. The
Iranian public knew that Soleimani had narrowly escaped death from Israeli drones, because Soleimani appeared on Iranian TV in
October and told the story. A plot kill him by at a memorial service in Iran was supposedly foiled. He came from Lebanon by way
of Syria into Iraq as if none of this had happened. Trump had sacked Bolton and failed to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil.
Iran seems to have thought that refusal to actually fight in the type of war that the international conventions were designed
to regulate is a licence to exert pressure by launch attacks without being targeted oneself. Now do they understand.
@Sean American troops invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killed thousands, and caused great destruction. Chaos and vengeful
Sunnis spilled over into Syria where the US proceeded to grovel before the terrorists we fret about. Soleimani was effective in
organizing resistance in Iraq and Syria and was in both countries with the blessing of their governments.
How you get Soleimani shouldn't be there out of that I have no idea.
@04398436986 Yet you ignore that the Neocons have lied about virtually every cause if war ever. Lied about Iraq, North Korea
and Iran nuclear info actions, about chem weapons in Syria, lied about Kosovo, lied about Libya, lied about Benghazi, lied about
Venezuela. So Whom I gonna believe, no government, but a Neocon led one least of all
It is common knowledge that ISIS is a US/Israeli creation. ISIS is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Thus, the US/Israel
staged the attack on the US base on 12.27.2019.
ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel
It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled
by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would
they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception
in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to
divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as
the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which
has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.
ISIS and Israel don't attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels
in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?
The MQ-9 pilot and sensor operator will be looking over their shoulders for a long time. They're as famous as Soleimani. Their
command chain is well known too, hide though they might far away.
And who briefed the president that terror Tuesday? The murder program isn't Air Force.
@anonymous The kind of crap Trump pulled in the assassination of Soleimani is what he should be impeached about–not the piss-ant
stuff about Hunter Biden's job in the Ukaranian gas company and his pappy's role in it.
Iraq an ally of the United States! Is it some kind of a joke? How can a master and slave be equal? We, the big dog want their
oil and the tail that wags us, Israel, want all Muslims pacified and the Congress, which is us wether we like or not, compliant
out of financial fears. Unless we curb our own greedy appetite for fossil fuels and at the same time tell an ally, which Israel
is by being equal in a sense that it can get away with murder and not a pip is raised, to limit its ambition, nothing is going
to be done to improve the situation. Until then it's an exercise in futility, at best!
Iran has NO choice but to defend itself from the savages. It has not been Iran that invaded US, but US with a plan that design
years before 9/11 invaded many countries. Remember: seven countries in five years. Soleimani was a wise man working towards peace
by creating options for Iran to defend itself. Iran is not the aggressor, but US -Israel-UK are the aggressor for centuries now.
Is this so difficult to understand. 9/11 was staged by US/Israel killing 3000 Christians to implement their criminal plan.
Soleimani, was on a peace mission, where was assassinated by Trump, an Israeli firster and a fifth column and the baby killer
Netanyahu. Is this difficult to understand by the Trump worshiper, a traitor.
Now, Khamenie is saying the same thing: "Iran should be strong in military warfare and sciences to prevent war and maintain
PEACE.
Only ignorant, arrogant, and racists don't understand this fact and refuse to understand how the victims have been pushed to
defend themselves.
The Assassin at the black house should receive the same fate in order to bring the peace.
When does Amerikastan *not* lie about anything? If an Amerikastani tells you the sun rises in the east, you're probably on Venus,
where it rises in the west.
I think this article is getting close to the truth, that this whole operation was and is an ISIS (meaning Israeli Secret Intelligence
Service) affair designed to pit America against the zionists' most formidable enemy thus far, Iran.
I'm of the opinion that Trump did not order the hit on Soleimani, but was forced to take credit for it, if he didn't want to
forfeit any chance of being reelected this year. The same ISIS (Israeli) forces that did the hit also orchestrated the "retaliation"
that Mr. Giraldi so heroically documents in this piece.
As usual, this is looking more and more like a zionist /jewish false flag attack on the Muslim world, with the real dirty-work
to be done by the American military.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan
that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House
apparently knew about may even have approved.
It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to the Judaic religious cult of Chabad
Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to
bring forth their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.
One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in particular, that he loathes and
despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.
It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since that agency has been placing their
agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.
That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man probably most responsible for halting
the terrorist activities of the heart-eating, head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli
version of the CIA, the Mossad.
"By way of deception thou shalt make war."
Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and
allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will perish.
"... In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now. ..."
"... Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia. ..."
"... Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come. ..."
"... Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif sent out a message whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a critical blow. ..."
"... Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world. In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully. ..."
"... Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets" See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article. ..."
"... To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others and has not for centuries. ..."
"... SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat. Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about. Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war. ..."
"... Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful. "We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days ..."
"... Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. ..."
"... Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html ..."
"... This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the future are punished in the present. ..."
Of all the preposterous assertions made since the drone assassination of Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on Jan. 3, the prize for
bottomless ignorance must go to the bottomlessly ignorant Mike Pompeo.
Speaking after the influential Iranian general's death, our frightening secretary of state declaimed on
CBS's Face the Nation
, "There was sound and just and legal reason for the actions the President took, and the world is safer as a result." In
appearances on
five
news programs on the same Sunday morning, the evangelical paranoid who now runs American foreign policy was a singer with a one-note
tune. "It's very clear the world's a safer place today," Pompeo said on ABC's Jan. 5 edition of This
Week.
In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's
foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now.
We are not safer now that Soleimani, a revered figure across much of the Middle East, has been murdered. The planet has just become
significantly more dangerous, especially but not only for Americans, and this is so for one simple reason: The Trump administration,
Pompeo bearing the standard, has just tipped American conduct abroad into a zone of probably unprecedented lawlessness, Pompeo's
nonsensical claim to legality notwithstanding .
This is a very consequential line to cross.
Hardly does it hold that Washington's foreign policy cliques customarily keep international law uppermost in their minds and that
recent events are aberrations. Nothing suggests policy planners even consider legalities except when it makes useful propaganda to
charge others with violating international statutes and conventions.
Neither can the Soleimani assassination be understood in isolation: This was only the most reckless of numerous policy decisions
recently taken in the Middle East. Since late last year, to consider merely the immediate past, the Trump administration has acted
ever more flagrantly in violation of all international legal authorities and documents -- the UN Charter, the International Criminal
Court, and the International Court of Justice in the Hague chief among them.
Washington is into full-frontal lawlessness now.
'Keeping the Oil'
Shortly after Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria last October, the president reversed course --
probably under Pentagon and State Department pressure -- and said some troops would remain to protect Syria's oilfields. "We want
to keep the oil," Trump declared in
the course of a Twitter storm. It soon emerged that the administration's true intent was to prevent the Assad government in Damascus
from reasserting sovereign control over Syrian oilfields.
The Russians had the honesty to call this for what it was. "Washington's attempt to put oilfields there under [its] control is
illegal,"
Sergei Lavrov said at the time. "In fact, it's tantamount to robbery," the Russian foreign minister added. (John Kiriakou, writing
for Consortium News, pointed out
that it is a violation of the 1907 Hague Convention. It is call pillage.)
Few outside the Trump administration, and possibly no one, has argued that Soleimani's murder was legitimate under international
law. Not only was the Iranian general from a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which means the crime is murder; the drone
attack was also a clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty, as has been widely reported.
In response to Baghdad's subsequent demand that all foreign troops withdraw from Iraqi soil,
Pompeo flatly refused even to discuss
the matter with Iraqi officials -- yet another openly contemptuous violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
It gets worse. In his own response to Baghdad's decision to evict foreign troops,
Trump threatened sanctions -- "sanctions like they've never seen before" -- and said Iraq would have to pay the U.S. the cost
of the bases the Pentagon has built there despite binding agreements that all fixed installations the U.S. has built in Iraq are
Iraqi government-owned.
At Baghdad's Throat
Trump, who seems to have oil eternally on his mind, has been at Baghdad's throat for some time. Twice since taking office three
years ago, he has
tried
to intimidate the Iraqis into "repaying" the U.S. for its 2003 invasion with access to Iraqi oil. "We did a lot, we did a lot
over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking about the oil," he said on the second of these occasions.
Baghdad rebuffed Trump both times, but he has been at it since, according to Adil Abdul–Mahdi, Iraq's interim prime minister.
Last year the U.S. administration
asked Baghdad for 50 percent of the nation's oil output -- in total roughly 4.5 million barrels daily -- in exchange for various
promised reconstruction projects.
Rejecting the offer, Abdul–Mahdi
signed an "oil
for reconstruction" agreement with China last autumn -- whereupon Trump threatened to instigate widespread demonstrations in
Baghdad if Abdul–Mahdi did not cancel the China deal. (He did not do so and, coincidentally or otherwise, civil unrest ensued.)
U.S. Army forces operating in southern Iraq, April. 2, 2003. (U.S. Navy)
Blueprints for Reprisal
If American lawlessness is nothing new, the brazenly imperious character of all the events noted in this brief résumé has nonetheless
pushed U.S. foreign policy beyond a tipping point.
No American -- and certainly no American official or military personnel -- can any longer travel in the Middle East with an assurance
of safety. All American diplomats, all military officers, and all embassies and bases in the region are now vulnerable to reprisals.
The Associated Press reported after the Jan. 3 drone strike that
Iran has developed 13 blueprints for reprisals
against the U.S.
Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech
at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise
other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia.
Here is a snippet from Pompeo's remarks:
"In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits.
It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose
costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so . In all cases we have to do this."
Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously
incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given
response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come.
Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif
sent out a message
whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These
few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a
critical blow.
24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq.
Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their response across their soil.
Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions
such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world.
In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This
was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist,
essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him
on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Well, there's two relevant bits here. Bullshit walks and money talks. Our money stopped talking $23T ago.
What goes around, comes around. Whenever, however it comes down, it's gonna hurt.
Antiwar7 , January 21, 2020 at 13:46
Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets"
See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article.
rosemerry , January 21, 2020 at 13:28
To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of
Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience
to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others
and has not for centuries.
Even if the USA hates Iran, it has already done inestimable damage to the Islamic Republic before this disgraceful action. Cruelty
to 80 million people who have never harmed, even really threatened, the mighty USA, by tossing out a working JCPOA and installing
economic "sanctions", should not be accepted by the rest of the world-giving in to blackmail encourages worse behavior, as we
have already seen.
"It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. " This is exactly what should be rejected by us all. These "leaders" will
not change their behavior without solidarity among "allies" like the European Union, which has already caved in and blamed Iran
for the changes -Iran has explained clearly why it made- to the JCPOA which the USA has left.
Abby , January 21, 2020 at 20:15
The only difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump doesn't hide the US naked aggression as well as Obama did. So far
Trump hasn't started any new wars. By this time in Obama's tenure we had started bombing more countries and accepted one coup.
dfnslblty , January 21, 2020 at 12:43
SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat.
Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about.
Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war.
Cheyenne , January 21, 2020 at 11:49
The above comment shows exactly why bellicose adventurism for oil etc. is so stupid and dangerous. If we continually prance
around robbing people, they're gonna unite to slap us down.
Hardly seems like anyone should need that pointed out but if anybody mentioned it to Trump or any other gung ho warhawk, he
must not have been listening.
Trump and Pompeo seem to have entered the Wild West stage of recent American history. I think they watch too many western movies,
without understanding the underrlying plot of 100% of them. It is the bad guys take over a town, where they impose their will
on the population, terrorizing everyone into obediance. They steal everything in sight and any who oppose them are summarily killed
off. In the end a good guy ( In American parlance, " a good guy with a gun" shows up . The town`s people approach him and beg
him to oppose the bad guys. He then proceeds to kill off the bad guys after the general population joins him in his crusade. it
looks as though we are at the stage in the movie where the general population is ready to take up arms against the bad guys.
The moral of the story the bad guys, the bullies, Pompeo and Trump, are either killed or chased out of town. But perhaps the
problem is that this plot is too difficult for Trump and Pompeo to understand. So they don`t quite get the peril that there gunmen
and killers are now in. They don`t see the writing on the wall.
Caveman , January 21, 2020 at 11:30
It seems the only US considerations in the assassination were – will it weaken Iran, will it strengthen the American position?
On that perspective, the answer is probably yes on both counts. Legal considerations do not seem to have carried any weight. In
the UK we recently saw a chilling interview with Brian Hook, U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It was clear that he saw the assassination as another nail in the coffin of the Iranian regime,
simply furthering a policy objective.
Vera Gottlieb , January 21, 2020 at 11:19
What is even sadder is the world's lack of gonads to stand up to this bully nation – that has caused so much grief and still
does.
Michael McNulty , January 21, 2020 at 11:01
The US government became a crime syndicate. Today its bootleg liquor is oil, the boys they send round to steal it are armies
and their drive-by shootings are Warthog strafings using DU ammunition. Their drug rackets in the back streets are high-grade
reefer, heroin and amphetamines, with pharmaceutical-grade chemicals on Main Street. They still print banknotes just as before;
but this time it's legal but still doesn't make them enough, so to make up the shortfalls they've taken armed robbery abroad.
paul easton , January 21, 2020 at 12:55
The US Government is running a protection racket, literally. In return for US protection of their sources of oil, the NATO
countries provide international support for US war crimes. But now that the (figurative) Don is visibly out of his mind, they
are likely to turn to other protectors.
One need not step back very far in order to look at the bigger longer range picture. What immediately comes into focus is that
this is simply the current moment in what is now 500 plus years of Western colonialism/neocolonialism. When has the law EVER had
anything to do with any of this?
ML , January 21, 2020 at 10:31
Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful.
"We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days. I hope he plans more overseas trips
for himself. He is a vile person, a psychopath proud of his psychopathy. He alone would make anyone considering conversion to
Christianity, his brand of it, run screaming into the night. Repulsive man.
Michael Crockett , January 21, 2020 at 09:40
Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. That said, IMO, the axis of resistance
has the military capability and the resolve to fight back and win. Combining China and Russia into a greater axis of resistance
could further shrink the Outlaw US Empire presence in West Asia. Thank you Patrick for your keen insight and observations. The
Empires days are numbered.
Sally Snyder , January 21, 2020 at 07:28
Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone
who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html
This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might
pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the
future are punished in the present.
Syria & Russia Publish Evidence Of US Weapons Recovered In Idlib 'Terrorist
Enclave' by Tyler
Durden Sat, 02/08/2020 - 22:00 0 SHARES The Syrian Army is making major gains inside Idlib
in a military offensive condemned by Turkey and the United States, over the weekend capturing
the key town of Saraqib from al-Qaeda linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham .
Amid the military advance, the Syrian and Russian governments say they've recovered proof of
US support for the anti-Assad al-Qaeda insurgent terrorists, publishing photographs of crates
of weapons and supplies to state-run
SANA :
Syrian Arab Army units have found US-made weapons and ammunition, and medicines made in
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait at the positions and caches of terrorist organizations in the towns
of Mardikh and Kafr Amim in Idleb southeastern countryside after crushing terrorism in
them.
Syrian reporters say they were recovered in newly liberated areas of southeastern Idlib
province, where army units "found weapons, ammunition and US-made shells and Grad missiles left
behind by terrorists at their positions in the town of Kafr Amim after they fled from the area
after the advancement of the army."
The Russian Embassy in Syria also circulated the photos on Saturday, saying there were some
"interesting findings" in areas that were controlled by terrorists:
For years since nearly the start of the war in 2011 and 2012, Damascus and Moscow have
repeatedly offered proof of US weaponry in the hands of jihadist terrorist groups, including
ISIS.
Meanwhile, in the past days the US State Department has issued repeat warnings to Damascus
that it must halt its joint offensive with Russia - going so far as to release a new video
framing the operation as an attack on civilians .
The US State Dept has issued a propaganda video that warns against any assaults on
#Idlib &
promises to "use all its power to oppose normalization of the Assad regime into the int'l
community". This is the US playing a part in supporting Al-Qaeda's war effort in #Syria
. pic.twitter.com/jyb8zHPzBZ
The US has charged that Damascus is harming "peace" in Idlib despite the fact that as of
2017 the US Treasury had quietly designated the main anti-Assad group in control of Idlib,
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham , as a
terrorist organization .
At the same time, top Turkish and Russian officials held high level talks in Ankara on Saturday over the
worsening humanitarian crisis in Idlib.
Turkey fears the fallout and strain of the hundreds of thousands of refugees now fleeing
Idlib toward the Turkish border, while Russia has charged that Erdogan has failed in his
promises to bring neutralize terrorist groups, who have even begun attacking civilians deep
inside of neighboring Aleppo province.
The guns Hillary, Obama, Juan McLame, and Eric Dickholder ran to Libya and beyond. That
was what got the US Amb whacked and why the stand down order was given by Valerie
Jarrett.
Of course the weapons are made in the USA! This is what happens when you allow Turkey into
NATO and sell it weapons. The weapons were made in the USA, sold to Turkey and then the Turks
sold/gave them to their brothers the Syrian Turkmen and ISIS fighters.
While the US the "land of the free and brave" is giving weapons to murderous islamistic
gangs, Iran, the "ultimate evil" is fighting these same inhumane rats for years.
Land of the tax slave, home of the subservient. Since when are the US Sociopaths In Charge
guilty of morality? Israel wants Syria destroyed, they happily send our sons and daughters to
their death to accommodate them, and supply weapons to the very faction they claim to
oppose.
It would be nice if the ******* assholes who run the MIC would realize that they can just
stand back and watch war WITHOUT participating. Nothing EVER gets accomplished in any war
except a transfer of real estate. What a complete waste, just look at the total destruction.
Then once done the idiots will go looking for another war to play in.
Make America...oops Israel....Great Again. The US and Israel funded and equipped the ISIS
to attack the Syrian government while pretending to be fighting ISIS. Bush, Clinton, Obama
and Trump, it makes little difference despite Trump's rhetoric...or should we say blatant
lies. Trump is actually more dangerous than Obama because so many conservatives/patriots are
sucked in by the lies and disarmed as a result.
Syria and Russian forces attack enemy insurgents illegally occupying Syria's Idlib and the
US CIA and State Department condemn it as a threat to civilians, yet one of Syria's neighbors
hit Damascus with repeated airstrikes, risking civilians, and the same US operatives are
silent about these actions??? I'm confused....
No they weren't silent. The State Department came out and said Israel was justified in
attacking Syria. Despite the fact Israel was using yet again a commerical airliner has bate.
Hoping that Syria would shoot down the jet.
My uncle worked for the federal government as a shoveler at the Money Hole. Retired there
to as a manager at the Money Hole. He said the weapons pickers at the Weapons Tree had it
tough, said jobs at the weapons tree went to mainly undocumented workers after Haliburton
took over the Weapons Tree contract.
The White House needs to figure out how to drip the information out that the Retarded Bush
43 regime and Barry Sotoro regime, along with their cabinets, were running Deep State regime
change in the middle East and around the world. Congress isn't going to drop anything. 50%+
of Congress is the Deep State.
I realize most Americans couldn't mentally handle a total information dump of truth all at
once. Their patriotism would be destroyed if they truly understood what the Demoncrats and
the Rhino Republicans and the Deep State Intelligence network have been doing since 1947
around the globe. They turned the US into a warmonger Empire, just like Rome.
McStain needs to be exposed though. Perhaps exposing a dead man's crimes first could start
the drip.
All done under Obama's watch... with the help of McStain, HRC, Jarret, Rice and many
more.
And you thought Benghazi was just a spontaneous protest over some video... It was arms
running and they needed to make sure there were no Ambass, oops I mean loose ends.
CIA had the ISIS program up and running since 1999. Iraq war, among other reasons, was
designed to get ISIS up and running. Took a decade and still didn't pay off.
That "From the USA for mutual defense" with the unaligned symbol and text is a dead
giveaway. No way anyone would fake that. Were these found in a baby milk factory? Or maybe
the maternity ward of a hospital?
Trump increased Obombers bombing campaigns by +400% & increased troops in ME by 15k.
Trump is even worse than Obomber. Maybe not as bad as Bush Jr. tough.
Israhell has been very careful not to have their name associated with terrorists; they get
Americans to do their dirty work and supply the terrorists instead. Good to be the puppet
master, especially when you have control of American politicians/POTUS.
Now let's have russia and syria count how many hundreds of thousands of Russian AKs, PKMs,
VKSs, RPKs, NSVs, RGNs, RPGs, Koronets, Konkurs, Fagots, and all the rest of the russian
millitary hardware is being used in Syria every day....but I am sure they cannot count that
high.
Those are USSR / Warsaw pact weapons not Russian weapons. They come from Romania,
Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and the Ukraine not Russia. AK-47 and most RPG's are open source
design. They make them all over the world.
I smell ******** on the first photo. Dark ops policy executors are never stupid enough to ever put a "courtesy of America" on
any weapons shipments in order to maintain plausible deniability. Otherwise how could they claim a fabricated story like "they were stolen out of a NATO
depot" or something like that?
The US never thought this war would ever end its defeat and did not care what the crates
had printed on them, arrogance told the US that the truth would never be known.
In the beginning no one expected Russians to jump in the Syrian war and if it wasn't for
the Russians, no one would have known the truth about ISIS like people are still oblivious to
all the terrorism in Iraq was sponsored by Mossad.
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime
like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.
Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges
that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides
understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.
Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.
Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and
in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing
for him to
do.
Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:
"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."
And
"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."
Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents
and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov
battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy
In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means
much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump
slightly deviated.
Then Trump ordered the drone strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering
conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were reversed, with
Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his
praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's
intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It
was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with
Iran for decades," Carlson
said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
"nice" Americans: .. Here is a sample of nice Americans who want to control our breath:
Pompeo , Fri 24 Jan 2020: "You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?"
Michael Richard Pompeo (57 y.o.) is the United States secretary of state. He is a former
United States Army officer and was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from January
2017 until April 2018
Nuland , earlier than Feb 2014: "Fuck the EU."
Victoria Jane Nuland (59 y.o) is the former Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State. She held the rank of Career
Ambassador, the highest diplomatic rank in the United States Foreign Service. She is the
former CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and is also a Member of the
Board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
"... A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it." ..."
"... Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid . ..."
"... The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change. ..."
"... The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle. ..."
"... the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office. ..."
"... The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré. ..."
"... But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day." ..."
"... Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement. ..."
"... And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq War–era figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth." ..."
"... One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000. ..."
"... Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world ..."
"... At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad. ..."
There was a time not so long ago, before President Donald Trump's surprise decision early this year to liquidate the Iranian commander
Qassem Soleimani, when it appeared that America's neoconservatives were floundering. The president was itching to withdraw U.S. forces
from Afghanistan. He was staging exuberant photo-ops with a beaming Kim Jong Un. He was reportedly willing to hold talks with the
president of Iran, while clearly preferring trade wars to hot ones.
Indeed, this past summer, Trump's anti-interventionist supporters in the conservative media were riding high. When he refrained
from attacking Iran in June after it shot down an American drone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson
declared , "Donald Trump was elected president precisely to keep us out of disaster like war with Iran." Carlson went on to condemn
the hawks in Trump's Cabinet and their allies, who he claimed were egging the president on -- familiar names to anyone who has followed
the decades-long neoconservative project of aggressively using military force to topple unfriendly regimes and project American power
over the globe. "So how did we get so close to starting [a war]?"
he asked. "One of [the hawks'] key allies is the national security adviser of the United States. John Bolton is an old friend
of Bill Kristol's. Together they helped plan the Iraq War."
By the time Trump met with Kim in late June, becoming the first sitting president to set foot on North Korean soil, Bolton was
on the outs. Carlson was on the president's North Korean junket, while Trump's national security adviser was in Mongolia. "John Bolton
is absolutely a hawk,"
Trump
told NBC in June. "If it was up to him, he'd take on the whole world at one time, OK?" In September, Bolton was fired.
The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had made clear his distaste for the neocons' belligerent approach to global affairs,
much to the neocons' own entitled chagrin. As recently as December, Bolton, now outside the tent pissing in, was hammering Trump
for "bluffing" through an announcement that the administration wanted North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. "The
idea that we are somehow exerting maximum pressure on North Korea is just unfortunately not true,"
Bolton told Axios . Then Trump ordered the drone
strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were
reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former
CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's
"decisive action." It was Carlson
who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades,"
Carlson said . "They
still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the
national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet
another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals
in the region -- a central part of his
2020 reelection bid
.
The anti-interventionist right is freaking out. Writing in American Greatness, Matthew Boose
declared , "[T]he Trump movement, which was generated out of opposition to the foreign policy blob and its endless wars, was
revealed this week to have been co-opted to a great extent by neoconservatives seeking regime change." James Antle, the editor of
The American Conservative, a publication founded in 2002 to oppose the Iraq War,
asked , "Did
Trump betray the anti-war right?"
In the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation.
Their concerns are not unmerited. The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign
policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien,
Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian
Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators
Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked
up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with
Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In
June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian
opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? --
regime change.
The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind
Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of
war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by
causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle.
Donald Trump has not dragged us into war with Iran (yet). But the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual
complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its
hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in
the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even
if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant
of the Oval Office.
But there was a time when the neoconservative coalition was not so entrenched -- and what has turned out to be its provisional
state of exile lends some critical insight into how it managed to hang around respectable policymaking circles in recent years, and
how it may continue to shape American foreign policy for the foreseeable future. When the neoconservatives came on the scene in the
late 1960s, the Republican old guard viewed them as interlopers. The neocons, former Trotskyists turned liberals who broke with the
Democratic Party over its perceived weakness on the Cold War, stormed the citadel of Republican ideology by emphasizing the relationship
between ideas and political reality. Irving Kristol, one of the original neoconservatives,
mused in 1985 that " what communists call the theoretical organs always end up through a filtering process influencing a lot
of people who don't even know they're being influenced. In the end, ideas rule the world because even interests are defined by ideas."
At pivotal moments in modern American foreign policy, the neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies
that might once have seemed outré. Jeane Kirkpatrick's seminal 1979 essay in Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards,"
essentially set forth the lineaments of the Reagan doctrine. She assailed Jimmy Carter for attacking friendly authoritarian leaders
such as the shah of Iran and Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza. She contended that authoritarian regimes might molt into democracies,
while totalitarian regimes would remain impregnable to outside influence, American or otherwise. Ronald Reagan read the essay and
liked it. He named Kirkpatrick his ambassador to the United Nations, where she became the most influential neocon of the era for
her denunciations of Arab regimes and defenses of Israel. Her tenure was also defined by the notion that it was perfectly acceptable
for America to cozy up to noxious regimes, from apartheid South Africa to the shah's Iran, as part of the greater mission to oppose
the red menace.
The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré.
There was always tension between Reagan's affinity for authoritarian regimes and his hard-line opposition to Communist ones. His
sunny persona never quite gelled with Kirkpatrick's more gelid view that communism was an immutable force, and in 1982, in a major
speech to the British Parliament at Westminster emphasizing the power of democracy and free speech, he declared his intent to end
the Cold War on American terms. As Reagan's second term progressed and democracy and free speech actually took hold in the waning
days of the Soviet Union, many hawks declared that it was all a sham. Indeed, not a few neocons were livid, claiming that Reagan
was appeasing the Soviet Union. But after the USSR collapsed, they retroactively blessed him as the anti-Communist warrior par excellence
and the model for the future. The right was now a font of happy talk about the dawn of a new age of liberty based on free-market
economics and American firepower.
The fall of communism, in other words, set the stage for a new neoconservative paradigm. Francis Fukuyama's The End of History
appeared a decade after Kirkpatrick's essay in Commentary and just before the Berlin Wall was breached on November 9,
1989. Here was a sharp break with the saturnine, realpolitik approach that Kirkpatrick had championed. Irving Kristol regarded it
as hopelessly utopian -- "I don't believe a word of it," he wrote in a response to Fukuyama. But a younger generation of neocons,
led by Irving's son, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, embraced it. Fukuyama argued that Western, liberal democracy, far from being
menaced, was now the destination point of the train of world history. With communism vanquished, the neocons, bearing the good word
from Fukuyama, formulated a new goal: democracy promotion, by force if necessary, as a way to hasten history and secure the global
order with the U.S. at its head. The first Gulf War in 1991, precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, tested the neocons'
resolve and led to a break in the GOP -- one that would presage the rise of Donald Trump. For decades, Patrick Buchanan had been
regularly inveighing against what he came to call the neocon "
amen corner" in and around the
Washington centers of power, including A.M. Rosenthal and Charles Krauthammer, both of whom endorsed the '91 Gulf War. The neocons
were frustrated by the measured approach taken by George H.W. Bush. He refused to crow about the fall of the Berlin Wall and kicked
the Iraqis out of Kuwait but declined to invade Iraq and "finish the job," as his hawkish critics would later put it. Buchanan then
ran for the presidency in 1992 on an America First platform, reviving a paleoconservative tradition that would partly inform Trump's
dark horse run in 2016.
But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy
wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert
Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently
pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian
fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In
his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen
stated , "Creative destruction
is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day."
We all know the painful consequences of the neocons' obsession with creative destruction. In his second inaugural address, three
and a half years after 9/11, George W. Bush cemented
neoconservative ideology into presidential doctrine: "It is the policy of the United States to 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." The neocons'
hubris had already turned into nemesis in Iraq, paving the way for an anti-war candidate in Barack Obama.
But it was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell. He announced
his Buchananesque policy of "America First" in a speech at Washington's Mayflower Hotel in 2016, signaling that he would not adhere
to the long-standing Reaganite principles that had animated the party establishment.
The pooh-bahs of the GOP openly declared their disdain and revulsion for Trump, leading directly to the rise of the Never Trump
movement, which was dominated by neocons. The Never Trumpers ended up functioning as an informal blacklist for Trump once he became
president. Elliott Abrams, for example, who was being touted for deputy secretary of state in February 2017, was rejected when Steve
Bannon alerted Trump to his earlier heresies (though he later reemerged, in January 2019, as Trump's special envoy to Venezuela,
where he has pushed for regime change). Not a few other members of the Republican foreign policy establishment suffered similar fates.
Kristol's The Weekly Standard, which had held the neoconservative line through the Bush years and beyond , folded
in 2018. Even the office building that used to house the American Enterprise Institute and the Standard, on the corner of
17th and M streets in Washington, has been torn down, leaving an empty, boarded-up site whose symbolism speaks for itself.
Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued
to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers
in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have
done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the
movement.
It was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell.
But other neocons -- the ones who want to wield positions of influence and might -- have, more often than not, been able to hold
their noses. Stephen Wertheim, writing in The New York Review of Books, has perceptively dubbed this faction the anti-globalist
neocons. Led by John Bolton, they believe Trump performed a godsend by elevating the term globalism "from a marginal slur
to the central foil of American foreign policy and Republican politics,"
Wertheim argued . The U.S. need not
bother with pesky multilateral institutions or international agreements or the entire postwar order, for that matter -- it's now
America's way or the highway.
And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian,
and Iraq War–era figures like
David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser,
the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't
care less if they negotiate,"
he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize
the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former
editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review ,
rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle
for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding
from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White
House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is
a myth."
In other words, whether the neocons themselves are occupying top positions in the Trump administration is almost irrelevant. The
ideology itself has reemerged to a degree that even Trump himself seems hard pressed to resist it -- if he even wants to.
How were the neocons able to influence another Republican presidency, one that was ostensibly dedicated to curbing their sway?
One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the
tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of
gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for
example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away"
from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. The event was hosted by Michael Doran, a
former senior director on George W. Bush's National Security Council and a senior fellow at the institute, who
wrote in
The New York Times on January 3, "The United States has no choice, if it seeks to stay in the Middle East, but to check
Iran's military power on the ground." Then there's Jamie M. Fly, a former staffer to Senator Marco Rubio who was appointed this past
August to head Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; he previously co-authored an essay in Foreign Affairs contending that it isn't enough to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities: "If the United States seriously considers military action,
it would be better to plan an operation that not only strikes the nuclear program but aims to destabilize the regime, potentially
resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all."
Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has
popped up to warn Trump against
trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle
East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any
others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War
and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000.
But there are plenty of institutions in Washington, and neoconservatism's seemingly inescapable influence cannot be chalked up
to the swamp alone. Some etiolated form of what might be called Ledeenism lingered on before taking on new life at the outset of
the Trump administration. Trump's overt animus toward Muslims, for example, meant that figures such as Frank Gaffney, who opposed
arms-control treaties with Moscow as a member of the Reagan administration and resigned in protest of the 1987 Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty, achieved a new prominence. During the Obama administration, Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy,
claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the White House and National Security Agency.
Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a
creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world: "We're in a world
war against a messianic mass movement of evil people." It was one of many signs that Trump was susceptible to ideas of a civilizational
battle against
"Islamo-fascism,"
which Norman Podhoretz and other neocons argued, in the wake of 9/11, would lead to World War III. In their millenarian ardor
and inflexible support for Israel, the neocons find themselves in a position precisely cognate to evangelical Christians -- both
groups of true believers trying to enact their vision through an apostate. But perhaps the neoconservatives' greatest strength lies
in the realm of ideas that Irving Kristol identified more than three decades ago. The neocons remain the winners of that battle,
not because their policies have made the world or the U.S. more secure, but by default -- because there are so few genuinely alternative
ideas that are championed with equal zeal. The foreign policy discussion surrounding Soleimani's killing -- which accelerated Iran's
nuclear weapons program, diminished America's influence in the Middle East, and entrenched Iran's theocratic regime -- has largely
occurred on a spectrum of the neocons' making. It is a discussion that accepts premises of the beneficence of American military might
and hegemony -- Hobbes's "ill game" -- and naturally bends the universe toward more war.
At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the
two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which
is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that
his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly
is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad.
As Trump takes an extreme hard line against Iran, the neoconservatives may ultimately get their long-held wish of a war with the
ayatollahs. When it ends in a fresh disaster, they can always argue that it only failed because it wasn't prosecuted vigorously enough
-- and the shuffle will begin again.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest and the author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.
@ JacobHeilbrunn
"... Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources." ..."
"... According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran. ..."
Why is Pompeo suddenly directing increasingly heated rhetoric towards Iran and its proxies
in South America?
"Anti-Iran hawks like Pompeo like to emphasize that Iran is not a defensively-minded
international actor, but rather that it is offensively-minded and poses a direct threat to the
United States," said Max Abrahms, associate professor of political science at Northeastern and
fellow of the Quincy Institute said in an interview with The American Conservative. "And
so for obvious reasons, underscoring Hezbollah's international tentacles helps to sell their
argument that Iran needs to be dealt with in a military way, and that the key to dealing with
Iran is through confrontation and pressure."
Stories highlighting the role of Hezbollah in America's backyard "are almost always peddled
by anti-Iran hawks," he said.
Like Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security
Policy, who aligns with the argument that Hezbollah has been populating South America since the
days of the Islamic revolution.
"From at least the 1980s, many Lebanese fled to South America, and among that flow Hezbollah
embedded themselves," she told The American Conservative in a recent interview. Their
activity "really expanded throughout the continent" during the presidencies of Iran's Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
During that time, Lopez added, "there was a really strong relationship that developed
Iranians established diplomatic facilities, enormous embassies and consulates, embedded IRGC
cover positions and MOIS (intelligence services) within commercial companies and mosques and
Islamic centers. This took place in Brazil in particular but Venezuela also."
Iran and Hezbollah intensified their involvement throughout the region in technical services
like tunneling, money laundering, and drug trafficking. Venezuela offered Iran an international
banking work-around during the period of sanctions, said Lopez.
Obviously security analysts like Lopez and even Pompeo, have been following this for years.
But the timing here, as the Senate impeachment inquiry heats up, looks suspicious.
Last week, just as it looks increasingly likely that former national security advisor John
Bolton and Pompeo himself will be hauled before the Senate as witnesses about the foreign aid
hold-up to Ukraine, Pompeo praised Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala for designating
"Iran-backed Hezbollah a terrorist organization," and slammed Venezuelan President Nicolas
Maduro for embracing the terrorist group.
Hezbollah "has found a home in Venezuela under Maduro. This is unacceptable," Pompeo said
when he met with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido last week.
Asked by Bloomberg News how significant a role Hezbollah plays in the region, Pompeo
responded, "too much."
From the interview:
Pompeo : " I mentioned it in Venezuela, but in the Tri-Border Area as well. This
is again an area where Iranian influence – we talk about them as the world's largest
state sponsor of terror. We do that intentionally. It's the world's largest; it's not just a
Middle East phenomenon. So while – when folks think of Hezbollah, they typically think
of Syria and Lebanon, but Hezbollah has now put down roots throughout the globe and in South
America, and it's great to see now multiple countries now having designated Hezbollah as a
terrorist organization. It means we can work together to stamp out the security threat in the
region."
Question: "I'm struck by this, because even hearing you – what you're
saying, right, now – I mean, to take a step back, an Iranian-backed terrorist
organization has found a home in America's backyard."
Pompeo: "It's – it's something that we've been talking about for some
time. When you see the scope and reach of what the Islamic Republic of Iran's regime has
done, you can't forget they tried to kill someone in the United States of America. They've
conducted assassination campaigns in Europe. This is a global phenomenon. When we say that
Iran is the leading destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world, it's
because of this terror activity that they have now spread as a cancer all across the globe.
"
Pompeo has also been publicly floating increasing sanctions on Venezuela. He called the
behavior of Maduro's government "cartel-like" and "terror-like," intensifying the sense that
there is a real security "threat" in our hemisphere.
Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and
"Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about
Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is
the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without
corroborating sources."
There's no question that Hezbollah has a presence in South America, said Abrahms, "but the
nature of its presence has been politicized."
"What this underscores is that Iran could pull the trigger, it could bloody
the U.S., including the U.S. homeland, but tends to avoid such violence. I think the question
that needs to be asked isn't just, 'where in the world could Iran commit an attack?' but
whether Iran is a rational actor that can be deterred," said Abrahms. "Interestingly, this
administration as well as its hawkish supporters tend to emphasize their belief that Iran can
in fact be deterred," since that is the logic behind "maximum pressure" against Iran, after
all. "The main causal mechanism according to advocates of maximum pressure, is that it will
force Iran as a rational actor to reconsider whether it wants to irritate the U.S By applying
economic pressure through sanctions, [they hope to] succeed in coaxing Iran to restructure the
nuclear deal and making additional concessions to the west and reigning in its activities in
the Persian Gulf and the Levant. At least on a rhetorical level, the hawks say they believe
Iran can be deterred," he said.
It would not be the first time that a president reacted to an intensifying impeachment
inquiry by redirecting national focus to threats abroad. In December 1998, as the impeachment
inquiry into then-President Bill Clinton heated up, Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq.
We should therefore apply some caution when we see decades-old threats amplified by
administration officials.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security
reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She
is the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her
work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill, UK Spectator, and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from
Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
Well, it looks like I'll need to start contributing to NPR again. They are a little too
woke for my tastes, but Pompeo is a liar, and frankly beyond the pale. A perfect
representative of the current administration by the way. Kudos to NPR for standing up to
him.
Much like U.S. foreign policy, it seems that Mike Pompeo is going to ignore the facts and
keep recklessly escalating the conflict. Surely he's aware that
The Washington Post
published the
email correspondence
between Ms. Kelley and press aide. This just makes him look like
a coward.
From the Trump voter perspective, this journalist should feel lucky that she wasn't sent
to Guantanamo Bay. All Trump voters think this way, there is no exception.
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this. And thank you for opening the
comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please point them out to me.
And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump
to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what
his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more
years.
Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery,
he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously
change the course.
So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons
and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his
intentions.
And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing
is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next
global superpower.
It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China
has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.
North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the
world how he treats international law and even allies.
With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are
important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than
substantial progress.
Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to
know can see, that he is neither one.
4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself
as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true
alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?
I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not
perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there,
is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and
economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years
ago.
And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and
unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As
you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.
And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my
own.
Trump outlived his shelf life. Money quote: "This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a
point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring
the world in 4 more years."
Notable quotes:
"... Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making ..."
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
"... Trump stands no chance if things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote. ..."
"... Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way out. ..."
"... Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I can't vote for either. Both spread chaos. ..."
"... President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC ..."
"... His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 - 15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year. ..."
"... Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and successful. ..."
President Trump will easily be acquitted in the senate trial. This may occur this week and
there will probably be no witnesses called. That will be an additional victory for him and will
add to the effect of his trade deal victories and the general state of the US economy. These
factors should point to a solid victory in November for him and the GOP in Congress.
Ah! Not so fast the cognoscenti may cry out. Not so fast. The Middle East is a graveyard of
dreams:
1. Iraq. Street demonstrations in Iraq against a US alliance are growing more
intense. There may well have been a million people in Muqtada al-Sadr's extravaganza. Shia
fury over the death of Soleimani is quite real. Trump's belief that in a contest of the will he
will prevail over the Iraqi Shia is a delusion, a delusion born of his narcissistic personality
and his unwillingness to listen to people who do not share his delusions. A hostile Iraqi
government and street mobs would make life unbearable for US forces there.
2. Syria. The handful of American troops east and north of the Euphrates "guarding"
Syrian oil from the Syrian government are in a precarious position with the Shia Iraqis at
their backs across the border and a hostile array of SAA, Turks, jihadis and potentially
Russians to their front and on their flanks.
3. Palestine. The "Deal of the Century" is approaching announcement. From what is
known of its contours, the deal will kill any remaining prospects for Palestinian statehood and
will relegate all Palestinians (both Israeli citizens and the merely occupied) to the status of
helots forever . Look it up. In return the deal will offer the helotry substantial bribes in
economic aid money. Trump evidently continues to believe that Palestinians are
untermenschen . He believe they will sell their freedom. The Palestinian Authority has
already rejected this deal. IMO their reaction to the imposition of this regime is likely to be
another intifada.
Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn
Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making . pl
Could it be true? If that is the case, it´s more scary than Elora thought when that of Soleimani
happened....This starts to look as a frenopatic...isn´t it?
With Iran and her allies holding the figurative Trump Card on escalation, will they ramp up
the pressure to topple him? They could end up with a Dem who couldn't afford to "lose" Syria
or Iraq.
I submit to you, Colonel, that the biggest threat to Trump is a Bernie/Tulsi ticket. Bernie
is leading in the Iowa and NH polls, and the recent spat with Warren (in my opinion) leaves
Bernie with no viable choice for VP other than Tulsi.
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this.
And thank you for opening the comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please
point them out to me.
And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a
point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring
the world in 4 more years.
Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery, he
has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously
change the course.
So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and
ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his
intentions.
And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing
is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next
global superpower.
It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China
has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.
North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the
world how he treats international law and even allies.
With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are
important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than
substantial progress.
Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to
know can see, that he is neither one.
4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself
as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true
alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?
I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not
perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there,
is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and
economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years
ago.
And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and
unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As
you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.
And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my
own.
The economy is actually quite good and he is NOT "a dictator." Dictators are not put on
trial by the legislature. He is extremely ignorant and suffers from a life in which only
money mattered.
Once Bernie wins the nomination, it's going to be escalation time. Trump stands no chance if
things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote.
I'm starting to think that Trumps weakness is believing that everyone and everything has a
monetary price. I think perhaps his dealings with China may reinforce his perception, as,
also, his alleged success in bullying the Europeans over Iran -- with the threat of tariffs on
European car imports. His almost weekly references to Iraqi and Syrian oil, allies "not
paying their way", financial threats to the Iraq Government, all suggest a fixation on
finance that has served him well in business.
The trouble is that one day President Trump is going to discover there is something money
can't buy, to the detriment of America.
Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy
both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are
sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be
contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way
out.
Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with
Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality
clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I
can't vote for either. Both spread chaos.
My subconscious is again acting out. The mini-WWIII with Iran could shut off Middle
Eastern oil at any time. The Fed is back to injecting digital money into the market. China
has quarantined 44 million people. Global trade is fragile. Today there are four cases of
Wuhan Coronavirus in the USA.
If confirmed that the virus is contagious without symptoms and
an infected person transmits the virus to 2 to 3 people and with a 3% mortality rate and a
higher 15% rate for the infirmed, the resupply trip to Safeway this summer could be both
futile and dangerous.
It's an old story. Mr X is elected POTUS; going to do this and that; something happens in the
MENA. That's all anyone remembers.
Maybe time to kiss Israel goodbye, tell SA to sell in whatever currency it wants, and realise that oil producers have to sell
the stuff -- it's no good to them in the ground...
President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC -- and much of the
Department of Commerce & Treasury. His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 -
15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to
Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the
President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year.
Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to
fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his
economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and
successful.
Carthage must be destroyed! I don't know if Trump is going to war with Iran willingly or with
a Neocon gun to his head, but if he's impeached I expect Pence to go on a holy crusade.
Daniel
Larison
We saw how Mike Pompeo
made a
fool of himself
on Friday with his angry tirade against Mary Louise Kelly, a reporter for NPR. That outburst came
after an interview that he cut short in which he was asked legitimate questions that he could not answer. His response
to the report about this was to malign the reporter with bizarre lies in what could be the most unhinged statement ever
sent out by an American Secretary of State:
Official response from Pompeo about his NPR interview. Haven't seen anything like this before
with a State Department seal on it:
pic.twitter.com/Hi1P18ZS0A
Pompeo's accusatory statement confirmed the substance of what Kelly had reported, and absolutely no one believes him
when he says that she lied to him. All of the available evidence
supports
Kelly's account, and nothing supports Pompeo's:
On the program, Ms. Kelly said Katie Martin, an aide to Mr. Pompeo who has worked in press relations, never asked
for that conversation to be kept off the record, nor would she have agreed to do that.
Mr. Pompeo's statement did not deny Ms. Kelly's account of obscenities and shouting. NPR said Saturday that Ms.
Kelly "has always conducted herself with the utmost integrity, and we stand behind this report." On Sunday, The New
York Times obtained emails between Ms. Kelly and Ms. Martin that showed Ms. Kelly explicitly said the day before the
interview that she would start with Iran and then ask about Ukraine. "I never agree to take anything off the table,"
she wrote.
It is the new definition of chutzpah for Pompeo to accuse someone else of lying and lack of integrity, since he has
been daily
shredding his
credibility
by
making things up
about non-existent U.S. policy successes and telling
easily refuted
lies
about
North
Korea
,
Iran
,
Yemen
, and
Saudi Arabia
. We have
good reason to believe
that the
recent claim that there was an "imminent attack" from Iran earlier this month was
another one of those lies
.
For her part, Kelly has a reputation for solid and reliable reporting, and no one thinks that she would do the things he
accuses her of doing. Pompeo's dig at the end is meant to imply that she misidentified Ukraine on the blank map that he
had brought in to test her. No one believes that claim, either. This is another preposterous lie that tells us that his
version of events can't be true. Pompeo has been
waging a war on the truth
for
the last year and a half, and this is just the most recent assault. The Secretary's meltdown this weekend has been
useful in making it impossible to ignore this any longer.
Literally nobody thinks Mike Pompeo is telling the truth about this, or anything. He works for
Donald Trump, who also lies about everything, always.
https://t.co/yTzZDZl5Gw
All of this is appalling, unprofessional behavior from any government official, and in a sane administration this
conduct along with his other false and misleading statements would be grounds for resignation. When Pompeo publicly
attacks a journalist for doing her job and impugns her integrity to cover up for the fact that he doesn't have any, he
is attacking the press and undermining public accountability. He is also undermining the department's advocacy for
freedom of the press when he tries to intimidate journalists with his obnoxious outbursts. Pompeo already alienated and
disgusted people in his department with his failure to come to the defense of officials that were being publicly
attacked and smeared, and this latest display has further embarrassed them. We need a Secretary of State who isn't a
serial liar, and right now we don't have one.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC
, where he also keeps a solo
blog
. He has been published in the
New York Times
Book Review
,
Dallas Morning News
,
World Politics Review
,
Politico Magazine
,
Orthodox Life
, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for
The Week
.
He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on
Twitter
.
email
How tank maintenance mechanical engineer and military contractor who got into congress
pretending to belong to tea party can became the Secretary of state? Only in America ;-)
"You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?" - Pompeo
Flips Out On NPR Reporter by Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2020 - 15:05 0
SHARES
Democrats' impeachment proceedings were completely overshadowed this week by the panic over
the Wuhan coronavirus. Still, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is clearly tired of having his
character repeatedly impugned by the Dems and the press claiming he hung one of his ambassadors
out to dry after she purportedly resisted the administration's attempts to pressure
Ukraine.
That frustration came to a head this week when, during a moment of pique, Secretary Pompeo
launched into a rant and swore at NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly after she wheedled him about
whether he had taken concrete steps to protect former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie
Yovanovitch.
House Democrats last week released a trove of messages between Giuliani associate Lev Parnas
and Connecticut Republican Congressional candidate Robert Hyde. The messages suggested that
Yovanovitch might have been under surveillance before President Trump recalled her to
Washington. One of the messages seems to reference a shadowy character able to "help" with
Yovanovitch for "a price."
Kelly recounted the incident to her listeners (she is the host of "All Things
Considered")
After Kelly asked Pompeo to specify exactly what he had done or said to defend Yovanovitch,
whom Pompeo's boss President Trump fired last year, Pompeo simply insisted that he had "done
what's right" with regard to Yovanovitch, while becoming visibly annoyed.
Once the interview was over, Pompeo glared at Kelly for a minute, then left the room,
telling an aide to bring Kelly into another room at the State Department without her recorder,
so they could have more privacy.
Once inside, Pompeo launched into what Kelly described as an "expletive-laden rant",
repeatedly using the "f-word." Pompeo complained about the questions about Ukraine, arguing
that the interview was supposed to be about Iran.
"Do you think Americans give a f--k about Ukraine?" Pompeo allegedly said.
The outburst was followed by a ridiculous stunt: one of Pompeo's staffers pulled out a blank
map and asked the reporter to identify Ukraine, which she did.
"People will hear about this," Pompeo vaguely warned.
Ironically, Pompeo is planning to travel to Kiev this week.
The questions came after Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Pompeo, told Congress
that he resigned after the secretary apparently ignored his pleas for the department to show
some support for Yovanovitch.
Listen to the interview here. A transcript can be found
here .
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly says the following happened after the interview in which she asked
some tough questions to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. pic.twitter.com/cRTb71fZvX
He's right. American don't give a **** about Ukraine. But why did Clinton and Obama and
now Trump and Pompeo? Why are they spending our money there instead of either taking care of
problems here or paying off the national debt?
The best thing that could happen to the Ukraine is for Russia to take it back.. they would
clean up that train wreck of a country... they've proven themselves as to being the scumbags
they are gypsies and grifters...
But why are Trump and Pompeo continuing the policy of Obama and Clinton there? Remember
Trump said he would pay off the national debt in 8 years? How about stop spending our money
on the War Party's foreign interventions for a starter.
I wish the same level of questioning was directed at Pompeo regarding Syria and Iran. You
may like his response because of the particular topic, but it doesn't change the fact that
he's a psycho neo-con fucktard who should be shot for treason.
U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo participates in a press conference with U.S. President Donald J. Trump during the
NATO Foreign Ministerial in Brussels on July 12, 2018. (State Department photo/ Public Domain)
January 24, 2020
|
9:21 pm
Daniel Larison
Mike Pompeo has proven to be a
blowhard and a bully
in his role as Secretary of State, and nothing seems to bother him more than challenging questions
from professional journalists. All of those flaws and more were on display during and after his interview with NPR's Mary
Louise Kelly today. After abruptly ending the
interview
when pressed on his failure to defend members of the Foreign Service, Pompeo then threw a fit and berated the
reporter who asked him the questions:
Immediately after the questions on Ukraine, the interview concluded. Pompeo stood, leaned in and silently glared at
Kelly for several seconds before leaving the room.
A few moments later, an aide asked Kelly to follow her into Pompeo's private living room at the State Department
without a recorder. The aide did not say the ensuing exchange would be off the record.
Inside the room, Pompeo shouted his displeasure at being questioned about Ukraine. He used repeated expletives,
according to Kelly, and asked, "Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?" He then said, "People will hear about this."
People are certainly hearing about it, and their unanimous judgment is that it confirms Pompeo's reputation as an
obnoxious, thin-skinned excuse for a Secretary of State. Kelly's questions were all reasonable and fair, but Pompeo is not
used to being pressed so hard to give real answers. We have seen his short temper and condescension before when other
journalists have asked him tough questions, and he seems particularly annoyed when the journalists calling him out are
women. Pompeo probably has the worst working relationship with the press of any Secretary of State in decades, and this
episode will make it worse.
When Pompeo realized he wouldn't be able to get away with his standard set of vacuous talking points and lies, he ended
the conversation. The
entire
interview
is worth reading to appreciate how poorly Pompeo performs when he is forced to explain how failing
administration policies are "working." When pressed on his untrue claims that "maximum pressure" on Iran is "working," all
that he could do was repeat himself robotically:
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
QUESTION: How?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
QUESTION: Sanctions?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
Kelly refused to accept pat, meaningless responses, and she kept insisting that Pompeo provide something, anything, to
back up his assertions. This is how administration officials should always be interviewed, and it is no surprise that the
Secretary of State couldn't handle being challenged to back up his claims. The questions wouldn't have been that hard to
answer if Pompeo were willing to be honest or the least bit humble, but that isn't how he operates. He sees every interview
as an opportunity to snow the interviewer under with nonsense and to score points with the president, and giving honest
answers would get in the way of both.
The section at the end concerned Pompeo's failure to stand up for State Department officials, especially Marie
Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine. Since Pompeo's support for these officials has been abysmal, there was
nothing substantive that he could say about it and tried to filibuster his way out of it. To her credit, Kelly was
persistent in trying to pin him down and make him address the issue. He had every chance to explain himself, but instead he
fell back on defensive denials that persuade no one:
QUESTION: Sir, respectfully, where have you defended Marie Yovanovitch?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I've defended every single person on this team. I've done what's right for every single person on
this team.
QUESTION: Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I've said all I'm going to say today. Thank you. Thanks for the repeated opportunity to do so; I
appreciate that.
Pompeo could have defended Yovanovitch and other officials that have come under attack, but to do that would be to risk
Trump's ire and it would require him to show the slightest bit of courage. In the end, his "swagger" is all talk and his
rhetoric about supporting his "team" at State is meaningless. Pompeo made a fool of himself in this interview, and it is
perfectly in keeping with his angry, brittle personality that he took out his frustrations by yelling at the reporter who
exposed him as the vacuous blowhard that he is.
about the author
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at
TAC
, where he also keeps a solo
blog
. He has been published in the
New York Times
Book Review
,
Dallas Morning News
,
World Politics Review
,
Politico Magazine
,
Orthodox
Life
, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for
The Week
. He
holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on
Twitter
.
email
Left out was the part when pompeo had one of his minions bring out a blank world map and challenged her to
find the Ukraine which she immediately did - i wonder if trump could find it
Apparently, Pompeo has suggested Kelly had pointed to Bangladesh, not Ukraine, on the map, and
commented "It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine."
I don't suppose we are ever likely to
see conclusive evidence that will establish for certain where she pointed.
It's probably just a matter of looking at their respective records of lying, cheating, and
stealing, and making a guess based on that.
My God, can he get any worse. I suppose so since his boss always falls to a lower level. There is no bottom.
Just admit that everyday brings a new low. Only thing surprising is that we get surprised at their
despicable behavior.
That's the problem with Trump henchmen: they can
always
get worse. There is no bottom, for to
have a limit below which the henchmen will not go would embarrass the
Capo di Tutti Capi
for
blowing through it on the way down. Henchmen have bills to pay, too, you know, just like people.
I'm sorry, is the "conservative" in the name of this blog some kind of parody? You all sure sound like
liberal democrats. Never been here before, won't be coming back.
Oh, and you forgot about the part where
Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to
a new topic. And the way she did so was to ask Pompeo if he owed Marie Yanokovich an apology. Yes, riveting
journalism devoid of partisan bias. Lol! But it was Pompeo. Right.
To the person who down voted me, I don't care. Honestly I'm glad you butthurt whiners have a place to
share your hurt feelings. Maybe if you're lucky Joe Biden will be President soon and you can all
rejoice that "decency" is back, or something.
Apparently Pompeo can only keep so many talking points in his head. One topic only. Are we to believe
the Secretary of State can't expound on more than a single subject? It must be true, otherwise he
wouldn't go around insisting he will only talk about one subject during an interview. I expect he
won't be getting many invites for interviews outside of FOX. Just as well, he's a bag of hot air
anyway.
I think there are many conservatives writing and commenting on this site. But perhaps you are
confusing "conservative" with "republican". There is little conservatism left in the republican party.
"...Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer
transitioned to a new topic."
Oh, the humanity!
Secretary Pompous couldn't just give a little chuckle and say something like "Now, now. You know we
agreed to talk only on one topic, so let's get together on another day to discuss other topics". ?
Just another guy in power who is too full of himself.
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
Italicized/bold
text was excerpted from the website
www.dni.gov
within a US National Intelligence Estimate published in Nov2007 titled:
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
ANSWER:
Key Judgements
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we
also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop
nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to
suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website
fas.org
a report published (updated 20Dec2019) by the Congressional Research Service titled:
Page 53, 2nd paragraph -
Iran's Nuclear Program: Status
Director of National Intelligence Coats reiterated the last sentence in May 2017 testimony.330He
testified in January 2019 that the U.S. intelligence community "continue[s] to assess that Iran is not
currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear
device." Subsequent statements from U.S. officials indicate that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons
program. According to an August 2019 State Department report, the "U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that
Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities judged necessary to produce
a nuclear device." Any decision to produce nuclear weapons "will be made by the Supreme Leader," Clapper
stated in April 2013.
"... Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states: ..."
"... America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. ..."
"... We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it. ..."
"... That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war. ..."
Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor who was chief of staff for
Secretary of State Colin Powel in the George W. Bush administration, powerfully summed up the
vile nature of the US national security state in a recent interview with host Amy Goodman at
Democracy Now.
Asked by Goodman about the escalation of US conflict with Iran and how it compares with the
prior run-up to the Iraq War, Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the
last two decades. Wilkerson states:
Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the
beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a
few days ago, is alive and well.
America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no
end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is.
We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing
right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark
Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator
Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party --
the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is
we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of
it.
What we saw President Trump do was not in President Trump's character, really. Those boys
and girls who were getting on those planes at Fort Bragg to augment forces in Iraq, if you
looked at their faces, and, even more importantly, if you looked at the faces of the families
assembled along the line that they were traversing to get onto the airplanes, you saw a lot
of Donald Trump's base. That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these
endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp
jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member
of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make
war.
Wilkerson, over the remainder of the two-part interview provides many more
insightful comments regarding US foreign policy, including recent developments concerning Iran.
Watch Wilkerson's interview here:
Maybe we should put sanctions on Pompeo. He could use the diet. Maybe raiding his pantry
would feed Iraqi for a couple months. He is truly perfect spokesman American empire.
Sadistic, bloated, and corrupt.
"... Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America". ..."
"... a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence. ..."
"... No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen. ..."
"... But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us." ..."
Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial
and energy hegemony of] America".
While this might be obvious to us, the narrative that US foreign policy is about
protecting citizens, values and apple pie from 'bad guys' -- and indeed that the militaries
of all Western countries are benign police forces preventing ISIS from burning your old
Eagles albums and other violations of 'freedom' -- is such a regular part of the
MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the
basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior
violence.
It always seemed strange to me that the post-ww2 cinematic template for war-movies, and by
extension the basic plot of all reporting of western military activity in the media, always
represented the enemy as evil precisely because they use militaries in an instrumental
way (i.e for the purpose they were designed). The Germans, or for that matter the
Persians in 300 , or any baddies in war films, seek to extend and protect their
interests (real or imagined) by deploying armed forces.
The good guys are always identifiable through this idea of 'deterrence': "hey man, all we
want is just to live and let live, but you pushed us so we pushed back." Then one stirs in a
little 'preemptive deterrence': you looked like you were going to push so we acted. If we
'accidentally' go too far, it's because there is a deranged C-in-C: Hitler, or Xerxes, or
some other naughty boy who can be the fall-guy, scapegoat, etc.
To get serious we need to go back a very long way, to, say, the Iliad , which, like
all Greek (and Roman) literature, assumes as a premise (and it's tragedy) that the warrior's
basic function is to kill, pillage, rape and occasionally protect others from the same. But
mostly take by force .
No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force
(land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just
once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want
to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We
will use violence and armed force to make this happen.
But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead
it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next
poor bastards who stand up to us."
Once they delved into "Conquest and Exploitation", the Military were OverScoped and Few
People thought of rebuilding/modernizing Civil Infrastructure and Economy of the
Conquered.
Also, IMHO, every Govt-Job that affect the Military and Veterans' Lives should be held by
Veterans. Need them to be where the Rubber Meets the Road before sending others into harm's
way. I'd go as far to require WH, Congress, Supremes to be Previously Assigned to Combat
Units/Hot Zones (FatBoy Pompeo Fails here) - and have Combat Eligible Family be in Active
Duty or Drilling Reserves - ready to be sent to the Front Lines should they call for War
while running the Republic-turned-Hegemon.
That would include BoneShards' Adult Children and Spouses.
WH have been on a PetroUSD/MIC/PNAC7/AIPAC Bandwagon - which drive down Non-Yielding
Nation-States with Sanctions.
Now BoneShards Opened the Pandora's Box of Open State Level Assassinations using
Diplomatic Peace Missions as Venues. Worse? Against a Nation-State which can Respond in Kind
- AND Develop+Deploy Nuclear WMDs. Not Ethical - Inhumane and Imbecilic, really. That's why I
am voting for Gabbard this Time. A 2nd Gen Navy Vet. Been to War Zones in the Gulf.
One of the strongest predictive sign that you have a sociopathic boss is that he/she is not
agreement capable.
The maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are exACTLY the desired result. Deliberately
and on purpose.
Notable quotes:
"... I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". ..."
I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a
pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". That's what I
meant by he selects for weak partners. His negotiating style signals that he is a bad faith
actor. Who would put up with that unless you had to, or you could somehow build that into
your price?
I have no idea who your mythical Russians are. I know two people who did business in Russia
before things got stupid and they never had problems with getting paid. Did you also miss that
"Russians" have bought so much real estate in London that they mainly don't live in that you
could drop a neutron bomb in the better parts of Chelsea and South Kensington and not kill
anyone?
Pray tell, how could they acquire high end property if they are such cheats?
"It is politically important: Russia has paid off the USSR's debt to a country that no
longer exists," said Mr Yuri Yudenkov, a professor at the Russian University of Economics and
Public Administration. "This is very important in terms of reputation: the ability to repay on
time, the responsibility," he told AFP.
It would have been very easy for Russia to say it cannot be held responsible for USSR's
debts, especially in this case where debt is to a non-existent entity.
Some rather alarming news this morning (here); Pompeo now says the assassination of Soleimani
was deterrence.
Not stopping there, he went on to say that U.S. deterrence also applies to Russia and
China!
I'd say the gauntlet has been thrown down; just how far behind can war be now?
The U.S. has been pushing the limits of international crime for decades; and I think
they're so used to being not challenged, that they forget (or stupidly think they're
invincible) Russia and China will fight rather than cow tow to any U.S. coercion...
IMO, we just entered a new and far more dangerous era...
"... On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing a senior U.S official, reported that "Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Suleimani months ago but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation." On Thursday, CNN's Nicole Gaouette and Jamie Gangel reported that "Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump's decision to kill" the Iranian general. The CNN story said that Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Trump before he moved to the State Department, viewed Suleimani as the mastermind of myriad operations targeting Americans and U.S interests. It also quoted an unnamed source close to Pompeo, who recalled the Secretary of State telling friends, "I will not retire from public service until Suleimani is off the battlefield." ..."
One of the new bogus explanations that the administration has been offering up is that there was a threat to one or more U.S. embassies
that led to the assassination. Rep. Justin Amash notes this morning that they have presented no evidence to Congress to back up any
of this or their original claim of an "imminent" attack:
The administration didn't present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies claim seems to be totally
made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence -- a necessary condition to act without congressional approval --
with respect to any of this. The administration didn't present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies
claim seems to be totally made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence -- a necessary condition to act without
congressional approval -- with respect to any of this. https://t.co/Eg0vaCnqFd
-- Justin Amash (@justinamash) -- Justin Amash (@justinamash) -- Justin Amash (@justinamash)
January 12, 2020
The administration's story keeps changing, because they are just making up unconvincing justifications for what they did. The president
invents new excuses for the illegal assassination, and his subordinates feel obliged to follow his lead because they are implicated
in his decision. The strange thing is that this administration still expects to be believed on something as important as this despite
their constant lying to Congress and the public about everything else. The president and Secretary of State have trashed their credibility
long ago, so there is no chance that we would give them the benefit of the doubt now. As a result, there is much more healthy and
appropriate skepticism about the administration's claims since January 2nd than there usually is. We are still piecing together what
happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by
determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing
this. John Cassidy The administration's story keeps changing, because they are just making up unconvincing justifications for what
they did. The president invents new excuses for the illegal assassination, and his subordinates feel obliged to follow his lead because
they are implicated in his decision. The strange thing is that this administration still expects to be believed on something as important
as this despite their constant lying to Congress and the public about everything else. The president and Secretary of State have
trashed their credibility long ago, so there is no chance that we would give them the benefit of the doubt now. As a result, there
is much more healthy and appropriate skepticism about the administration's claims since January 2nd than there usually is. We are
still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are
getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the
leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading
up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action
against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy We are still piecing together what happened
at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined
hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John
Cassidy
reports :
On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing a senior U.S official, reported that "Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Suleimani
months ago but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation." On Thursday, CNN's
Nicole Gaouette and Jamie Gangel reported that "Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump's decision to kill" the
Iranian general. The CNN story said that Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Trump before he
moved to the State Department, viewed Suleimani as the mastermind of myriad operations targeting Americans and U.S interests.
It also quoted an unnamed source close to Pompeo, who recalled the Secretary of State telling friends, "I will not retire from
public service until Suleimani is off the battlefield."
Pompeo has Pompeo has
lied constantly
about Iran and the nuclear deal before and after he became Secretary of State, so it is not surprising that he has been the administration's
public face as they lie to Congress and the public about this illegal assassination. No wonder
he doesn't want to appear before Congress to testify.
Add to this the concomitant attempt made in Yemen, where there is no American presence other than the bombs dropping from the
sky, against an Iranian operative, and it shows the push of the administration to go for the kill as the main factor. The US is
becoming more and more like Israel: kill first, no excuses, we are the chosen ones - The "revenge" of Dinah's brothers, Genesis
34:25. This is The US of A's diplomacy nowadays. The world has really been put on notice. And the world will be reacting, see
the visit of Chancellor Merkel to Moscow immediately after that.
The question is what the American citizens are going to do? What are they going to vote for?
Why shouldn't Trump and his Administration's creatures "expect to be believed"? He and his toadies have misstated, misled, BS-ed
and outright lied to the public for three years now; and - despite a "credibility gap" of Vallis Marineris proportions - have
gotten no appreciable pushback from the media.
The right-wing media simply cheerlead him, as usual: and everybody else just sort of nods, grunts, and moves on.
I see we have reached peak hypocrisy now. Resign Mike. You are an embarrassment to the
people of the United States who you claim to be serving. Every day you read the same script,
and it's a bevy of lies, every time.
"... Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely," said the former Republican national security official. ..."
As planning got underway, Pompeo worked with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Mark
Milley and the commander of CENTCOM Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie to assess the profile of
troops in the field. Multiple sources also say that hawkish Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of
Arkansas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were kept in the loop and also pushed Trump to
respond.
Trump was not at all reluctant to target Soleimani, multiple sources said, adding that the
President's other senior advisers -- Esper, Milley, CIA Director Gina Haspel and national
security adviser Robert O'Brien -- "were all on board."
Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that
bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely,"
said the former Republican national security official.
That said, the former official expressed concern about the lack of deep expertise in Trump's
national security team. Several analysts pointed to this as one factor in Pompeo's outsized
influence within the administration.
The government is so compromised by Trump and by all the vacancies and lack of experience,
this former official said, that "everything is being done by a handful of principles -- Pompeo,
Esper, Milley. There are a lot of things being left on the floor."
'Such a low bar'
Pompeo is arguably the most experienced of the national security Cabinet, the former
national security official said, "but it's such a low bar."
"It's such a small group and there's so much that needs to be done," the former official
said. "Everyone in this administration is a level and a half higher than they would be in a
normal administration. They have no bench," they said.
The Trump administration has been handicapped by the President's refusal to hire Republicans
who criticize him. Other Republicans won't work for the administration, for fear of being
"tainted" or summarily fired, the former official said.
As layers of experience have been peeled away at the White House, some analysts say
safeguards have been removed as well. CNN's Peter Bergen has written in his new book, "Trump
and his Generals," that former Defense Secretary James Mattis told his aides not to present the
President with options for confronting Iran militarily.
Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, argues that since the departure of
Mattis, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and former White House chief of
staff and retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, there are very few voices at the White House to offer
"deeply considered advice."
"We don't have those people who have that experience and could look Trump in the eye and who
have his respect and who could say, 'Hey, hey, hey -- wait!'," Slim said.
'Brought to Jesus': the evangelical grip on the Trump administration The influence of
evangelical Christianity is likely to become an important question as Trump finds himself
dependent on them for political survival
Fri 11 Jan 2019 02.00 EST Last modified on Fri 18 Jan 2019 16.51 EST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Donald Trump at
the Republican national convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on 18 July 2016. Photograph: Mike
Segar/Reuters I n setting out the Trump administration's Middle East policy, one of the first
things Mike Pompeo made clear to his audience in Cairo is that he had come to the region as "as
an evangelical Christian".
In his speech at the American University in Cairo, Pompeo said that in his state department
office: "I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and his word, and the truth."
The secretary of state's primary message in Cairo was that the US was ready once more to
embrace conservative Middle Eastern regimes, no matter how repressive, if they made common
cause against Iran.
His second message was religious. In his visit to Egypt, he came across as much as a
preacher as a diplomat. He talked about "America's innate goodness" and marveled at a newly
built cathedral as "a stunning testament to the Lord's hand".
ss="rich-link"> 'Toxic Christianity': the evangelicals creating champions for
Trump Read more
The desire to erase Barack Obama's legacy, Donald Trump's instinctive embrace of autocrats,
and the private interests of the Trump Organisation have all been analysed as driving forces
behind the administration's foreign policy.
The gravitational pull of white evangelicals has been less visible. But it could have
far-reaching policy consequences. Vice President Mike Pence and Pompeo both cite evangelical
theology as a powerful motivating force.
Just as he did in Cairo, Pompeo called on the congregation of a Kansan megachurch three
years ago to join a fight of good against evil.
"We will continue to fight these battles," the then congressman said at the Summit church in Wichita. "It
is a never-ending struggle until the rapture. Be part of it. Be in the fight."
For Pompeo's audience, the rapture invoked an apocalyptical Christian vision of the future,
a final battle between good and evil, and the second coming of Jesus Christ, when the faithful
will ascend to heaven and the rest will go to hell.
For many US evangelical Christians, one of the key preconditions for such a moment is the
gathering of the world's Jews in a greater Israel between the Mediterranean and the Jordan
River. It is a belief, known as premillenial dispensationalism or Christian Zionism – and
it has very real potential consequences for US foreign policy .
It directly colours views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indirectly, attitudes
towards Iran, broader Middle East geopolitics and the primacy of protecting Christian
minorities. In his Cairo visit, Pompeo heaped praise on Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for building the
new cathedral, but made no reference to the 60,000
political prisoners the regime is thought to be holding, or its routine use of torture.
Pompeo is an evangelical Presbyterian, who says he was "brought to Jesus" by other cadets at
the West Point military academy in the 1980s.
"He knows best how his faith interacts with his political beliefs and the duties he
undertakes as secretary of state," said Stan van den Berg, senior pastor of Pompeo's church in
Wichita in an email. "Suffice to say, he is a faithful man, he has integrity, he has a
compassionate heart, a humble disposition and a mind for wisdom."
As Donald
Trump finds himself ever more dependent on them for his political survival, the influence
of Pence, Pompeo and the ultra-conservative white Evangelicals who stand behind them is likely
to grow.
"Many of them relish the second coming because for them it means eternal life in heaven,"
Andrew Chesnut, professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University said. "There
is a palpable danger that people in high position who subscribe to these beliefs will be
readier to take us into a conflict that brings on Armageddon."
Chesnut argues that Christian Zionism has become the "majority theology" among white US
Evangelicals, who represent about a quarter of the
adult population . In a 2015
poll , 73% of evangelical Christians said events in Israel are prophesied in the Book of
Revelation. Respondents were not asked specifically whether their believed developments in
Israel would actually bring forth the apocalypse.
The relationship between evangelicals and the president himself is complicated.
Trump himself embodies the very opposite of a pious Christian ideal. Trump is not
churchgoer. He is profane, twice divorced, who has boasted of sexually assaulting women. But
white evangelicals have embraced him.
Eighty per cent of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016, and his popularity among them
is remains in the 70s. While other white voters have flaked away in the first two years of his
presidency, white evangelicals have become his last solid bastion.
Some leading evangelicals see Trump as a latterday King Cyrus, the sixth-century BC Persian
emperor who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity.
The comparison is made explicitly in
The Trump Prophecy , a religious film screened in 1,200 cinemas around the country in
October, depicting a retired firefighter who claims to have heard God's voice, saying: "I've
chosen this man, Donald Trump, for such a time as this."
Lance Wallnau , a self-proclaimed
prophet who features in the film, has called Trump "God's Chaos Candidate" and a "modern
Cyrus".
"Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the
faithful," said Katherine
Stewart , who writes extensively about the Christian right.
She added that they welcome his readiness to break democratic norms to combat perceived
threats to their values and way of life.
"The Christian nationalist movement is characterized by feelings of persecution and, to some
degree, paranoia – a clear example is the idea that there is somehow a 'war on
Christmas'," Stewart said. "People in those positions will often go for authoritarian leaders
who will do whatever is necessary to fight for their cause."
Trump was raised as a Presbyterian, but leaned increasingly towards evangelical preachers as
he began contemplating a run for the presidency.
Trump's choice of Pence as a running mate was a gesture of his commitment, and four of the
six preachers at his inauguration were evangelicals, including White and Franklin Graham, the
eldest son of the preacher Billy Graham, who defended Trump through his many sex scandals,
pointing out: "We are all sinners."
Having lost control of the House of Representatives in November, and under ever closer
scrutiny for his campaign's links to the Kremlin, Trump's instinct has been to cleave ever
closer to his most loyal supporters.
Almost alone among major demographic groups, white evangelicals are overwhelmingly in favour
of Trump's border wall, which some preachers equate with fortifications in the Bible.
Evangelical links have also helped shape US alliances in the Trump presidency. As secretary
of state, Pompeo has been instrumental in forging link with other evangelical leaders in the
hemisphere, including
Guatemala's Jimmy Morales and the new Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro . Both have undertaken to
follow the US lead in
moving their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem .
Trump's order to move
the US embassy from Tel Aviv – over the objections of his foreign policy and national
security team – is a striking example of evangelical clout.
ss="rich-link"> Sheldon Adelson: the casino mogul driving Trump's Middle East
policy Read more
The move was also pushed by Las Vegas billionaire and Republican mega-donor, Sheldon
Adelson, but the orchestration of the
embassy opening ceremony last May, reflected the audience Trump was trying hardest to
appease.
For many evangelicals, the move cemented Trump's status as the new Cyrus, who oversaw the
Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.
The tightening of the evangelical grip on the administration has also been reflected in a
growing hostility to the UN, often portrayed as a sinister and godless organisation.
Since the US ambassador, Nikki Haley, announced her departure in October and Pompeo took
more direct control, the US mission has become increasingly combative, blocking references to
gender and
reproductive health in UN documents.
Some theologians also see an increasingly evangelical tinge to the administration's broader
Middle East policies, in particular its fierce embrace of Binyamin Netanyahu's government, the
lack of balancing sympathy for the Palestinians – and the insistent demonisation of the
Iranian government.
ss="rich-link"> US will expel every last Iranian boot from Syria, says Mike Pompeo
Read more
Evangelicals, Chesnut said, "now see the United States locked into a holy war against the
forces of evil who they see as embodied by Iran".
This zeal for a defining struggle has thus far found common cause with more secular hawks
such as the national security adviser, John Bolton, and Trump's own drive to eliminate the
legacy of Barack Obama, whose signature foreign policy achievement was the 2015 nuclear deal
with Tehran, which Trump abrogated last May.
In conversations with European leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May, Trump has
reportedly insisted he has no intention of going to war with Iran. His desire to extricate US
troops from Syria marks a break with hawks, religious and secular, who want to contain Iranian
influence there.
But the logic of his policy of ever-increasing pressure, coupled with unstinting support for
Israel and Saudi Arabia, makes confrontation with Iran ever more likely.
One of the most momentous foreign policy questions of 2019 is whether Trump can veer away
from the collision course he has helped set in motion – perhaps conjuring up a last
minute deal, as he did with North Korea – or instead welcome conflict as a distraction
from his domestic woes, and sell it to the faithful as a crusade.
The 2016 presidential elections are proving historic, and not just because of the surprising
success of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, the lively debate among
feminists over whether to support Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump's unorthodox candidacy.
The elections are also groundbreaking because they're revealing more dramatically than ever
the corrosive effect of big money on our decaying democracy.
Following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision and related rulings,
corporations and the wealthiest Americans gained the legal right to raise and spend as much
money as they want on political candidates.
The 2012
elections were consequently the most expensive in U.S. history. And this year's races are predicted to cost even
more. With the general election still six months away, donors have already sunk $1 billion into
the presidential race -- with $619 million raised by candidates and another $412 million by
super PACs.
Big money in politics drives grave inequality in our country. It
also drives war.
After all, war is a profitable industry. While millions of people all over the world are
being killed and traumatized by violence, a small few make a killing from the never-ending war
machine.
During the Iraq War, for example, weapons manufacturers and a cadre of other corporations
made billions on federal contracts.
Most notoriously this included Halliburton, a military contractor previously led by Dick
Cheney. The company made huge profits from George W. Bush's decision to wage a costly,
unjustified, and illegal war while Cheney served as his vice president.
Military-industrial corporations spend heavily on political campaigns. They've given
over $1 million to this year's presidential candidates so far -- over $200,000 of which
went to Hillary Clinton, who leads the pack in industry backing.
These corporations target House and Senate members who sit on the Armed Forces and
Appropriations Committees, who control the purse strings for key defense line items. And
cleverly, they've planted
factories in most congressional districts. Even if they provide just a few dozen
constituent jobs per district, that helps curry favor with each member of Congress.
Thanks to aggressive lobbying efforts, weapons manufacturers have secured the
five largest contracts made by the federal government over the last seven years. In 2014,
the U.S. government awarded over $90 billion worth of contracts to Lockheed Martin, Boeing,
General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.
Military spending has been one of the top three biggest federal programs every year since
2000, and it's far and away the largest discretionary portion. Year after year, elected
officials spend several times
more on the military than on education, energy, and the environment combined.
Lockheed Martin's problematic F-35 jet illustrates this disturbingly disproportionate use of
funds. The same $1.5 trillion Washington will spend on the jet, journalist Tom Cahill
calculates , could have provided tuition-free public higher education for every student in
the U.S. for the next 23 years. Instead, the Pentagon ordered a fighter plane that
can't even fire its own gun yet.
Given all of this, how can anyone justify war spending?
Some folks will say it's to make
us safer . Yet the aggressive U.S. military response following the 9/11 attacks -- the
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Libya, and drone strikes in Pakistan and
Yemen -- has only destabilized the region. "Regime change" foreign policies have collapsed
governments and opened the doors to Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS.
Others may say they support a robust Pentagon budget because of the
jobs the military creates . But dollar for dollar, education spending creates nearly three
times more jobs than military spending.
We need to stop letting politicians and corporations treat violence and death as "business
opportunities." Until politics become about people instead of profits, we'll remain crushed in
the death grip of the war machine.
And that is the real national security threat facing the United States today.
Share this:
"... Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1. ..."
CEOs of major U.S. military contractors stand to reap huge windfalls from the escalation of conflict with Iran.
This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official last
week. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies' share prices spiked, inflating the value of
their executives' stock-based pay.
I took a look at how the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors were affected by this surge, using the most
recent SEC information on their stock holdings.
Northrop Grumman executives saw the biggest increase in the value of their stocks after the U.S. airstrike that
killed Qasem Suleimani on January 2. Shares in the B-2 bomber maker rose 5.43 percent by the end of trading the
following day.
Wesley Bush, who turned Northrop Grumman's reins over to Kathy Warden last year, held
251,947 shares
of company stock in various trusts as of his final SEC Form 4 filing in May 2019. (Companies
must submit these reports when top executives and directors buy and sell company stock.) Assuming Bush is still
sitting on that stockpile, he saw the value grow by $4.9 million to a total of $94.5 million last Friday.
New Northrop Grumman CEO Warden saw the
92,894 shares
she'd accumulated as the firm's COO expand in value by more than $2.7 million in just one day of
post-assassination trading.
Lockheed Martin, whose
Hellfire missiles
were reportedly used in the attack at the Baghdad airport, saw a 3.6 percent increase in
price per share on January 3. Marillyn Hewson, CEO of the world's largest weapon maker, may be kicking herself for
selling off a considerable chunk of stock last year when it was trading at around $307. Nevertheless, by the time
Lockheed shares reached $413 at the closing bell, her
remaining stash
had increased in value by about $646,000.
What about the manufacturer of the
MQ-9 Reaper
that carried the Hellfire missiles? That would be General Atomics. Despite raking in
$2.8
billion
in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is not required to disclose executive
compensation information because it is a privately held corporation.
We do know General Atomics CEO Neal Blue is worth an estimated
$4.1 billion
-- and he's a
major
investor
in oil production, a sector that
also stands to profit
from conflict with a major oil-producing country like Iran.
*Resigned 12/22/19. **Resigned 1/1/19 while staying on
as chairman until 7/19. New CEO Kathy Warden accumulated 92,894 shares in her previous position as Northrop
Grumman COO.
Suleimani's killing also inflated the value of General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic's fortune. As the weapon
maker's share price rose about 1 percentage point on January 3, the former CIA official saw her
stock holdings
increase by more than $1.2 million.
Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy saw a single-day increase in his stock of more than half a million dollars, as the
missile and bomb manufacturer's share price increased nearly 1.5 percent. Boeing stock remained flat on Friday.
But Dennis Muilenberg, recently ousted as CEO over the 737 aircraft scandal, appears to be well-positioned to
benefit from any continued upward drift of the defense sector.
As of his final
Form 4
report, Muilenburg was sitting on stock worth about $47.7 million. In his yet to be finalized exit
package, the disgraced former executive could also pocket huge sums of currently unvested stock grants.
Hopefully sanity will soon prevail and the terrifyingly high tensions between the Trump administration and Iran
will de-escalate. But even if the military stock surge of this past Friday turns out to be a market blip, it's a
sobering reminder of who stands to gain the most from a war that could put millions of lives at risk.
We can put an end to dangerous war profiteering by denying federal contracts to corporations that pay their top
executives excessively. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed
capping CEO pay
at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts at no more than $400,000 (the salary of the U.S.
president). That notion should be extended to companies that receive massive taxpayer-funded contracts.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has
a plan
to deny federal contracts to companies that pay CEOs more than 150 times what their typical worker
makes.
As long as we allow the top executives of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, the profit
motive for war in Iran -- or anywhere -- will persist.
Share this:
Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS
publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1.
He's played fast and loose with the facts, undermining his credibility on the world
stage.
Democrats insist the move was hasty and claim there wasn't adequate intelligence to justify
killing Soleimani. Essetually he was murged because Pompeo wanted to show the strength of the USA
in view of the attack on the USA embassy (which did not have any victims)
Pompeo collected more campaign donations from the Kochs and their employees than any
candidate in the country
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, military analysts say Soleimani's assassination by the US is tantamount to a declaration of war against regional superpower Iran. What is certain is that his death marks the beginning of a terrifying new and unpredictable era in an already turbulent region. ..."
"... Indeed, in retrospect it seems nothing short of astonishing that just a day earlier the ayatollah himself had mocked Trump about the violence outside the US embassy in Iraq, which Washington claimed was orchestrated by Iran. 'You can't do anything,' Khamenei said, in what will surely go down in history as one of the most ill-advised tweets ever posted by a country's leader. ..."
"... While most people in the West will not have known much, if anything, about Soleimani before the announcement of his death yesterday, in Iran he was the most revered military leader since the country's 1979 revolution. ..."
Consequences: Donald Trump appears to have no strategy for dealing with the fall-out
In fact, military analysts say Soleimani's assassination by the US is tantamount to a
declaration of war against regional superpower Iran. What is certain is that his death marks
the beginning of a terrifying new and unpredictable era in an already turbulent region.
Unsurprisingly, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei warned that 'severe consequences'
await the killers of Soleimani, while the country's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif,
denounced the assassination as an 'act of international terrorism'.
Meanwhile in the US, a number of major cities have increased security to protect prominent
landmarks and civilians from possible revenge terrorist attacks.
Whether or not that US reaction is justified, it would be difficult to overstate just how
big a loss Soleimani's death is for the Iranian regime, how seriously we should take its vows
of revenge – or, just as crucially, how humiliatingly off-guard Iran's leaders were when
Trump gave his kill order.
Indeed, in retrospect it seems nothing short of astonishing that just a day earlier the
ayatollah himself had mocked Trump about the violence outside the US embassy in Iraq, which
Washington claimed was orchestrated by Iran. 'You can't do anything,' Khamenei said, in what
will surely go down in history as one of the most ill-advised tweets ever posted by a country's
leader.
Meanwhile, so apparently unconcerned was Soleimani about his own safety that the general
– famed for constantly outsmarting his enemies on the battlefield – did not bother
to keep his travel plans secret.
While most people in the West will not have known much, if anything, about Soleimani before
the announcement of his death yesterday, in Iran he was the most revered military leader since
the country's 1979 revolution.
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian commander, CNN reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration. ..."
"... The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role of CIA director and then his current one. ..."
"... Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS, Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied. ..."
"... "He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the Cabinet". ..."
"... While bragging about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc reacting favorably to the suggestion. ..."
Mike Pompeo has reportedly long cherished plans to take the Iranian general off the Middle
East battlefield, as he is said to have for quite a while seen late Commander Soleimani as the
one behind the spiralling tensions with Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been
revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian
commander, CNN
reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating
Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration.
According to several sources, taking Iranian General Qasem Soleimani – the leader of
the elite Quds Force, a powerful military group with vast leverage in the region - "off the
battlefield" has been Pompeo's goal for a decade.
Pompeo "was the one who made the case to take out Soleimani, it was him absolutely", a source
said, adding he apparently floated the idea when debating the US Embassy raid over New Year
with Trump.
According to a number of sources close to Pompeo, the secretary of state has at all times
believed that Iran is the root cause of the woes in the Middle East, and Soleimani in
particular - the mastermind of terrorism raging across the region. This point of view is
notably in tune with how Pompeo commented on the commander's assassination:
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield", Pompeo told CNN on 5 January. "We made the right
decision". The same day, Pompeo told ABC that killing Soleimani was important "because this
was a fella who was the glue, who was conducting active plotting against the United States of
America, putting American lives at risk".
The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought
to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role
of CIA director and then his current one.
Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS,
Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any
military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied.
"He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing
the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in
helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the
Cabinet".
Regardless of who inspired the drone attack that killed Soleimani, the two countries are
indeed going through a stint of severe tensions, but no direct military confrontation. After
Tehran's retaliatory attack, Trump announced a slew of more stringent economic limitations to
be slapped on Iran.
While bragging
about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his
tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising
that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get
more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc
reacting favorably to the suggestion.
"... Hopefully you are right on the Kurds and Sunnis, but the US ability to enlist proxies has always surprised me. ..."
"... Newspeak: IRAN APPEARS TO BE STANDING DOWN. Imperial words when attacked directly. ..."
"... Iran has been patiently demonstrating its capabilities. The following terms came into the vernacular and are associated with those capabilities: Stena Impero/Adryan Darya, Khurais and Abqaiq, RQ-4A Global Hawk, PMU/PMF and many others, and now, Ain al-Asad. ..."
"... US cannot afford to fight a war with Iran directly. If so, it would have to fight from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, so, just be ready for skirmishes here and there. I see RSH is posting here now. He has been predicting a war between the two nations by the end of 2010, end of 2011, end of 2012, and on and on, on other sites. Haven't read enough of his comments to see if it's now by the end of 2020? ..."
"... But I think both Iran and North Korea will keep the pressure on the US high throughout this election year, entirely intentional of course. ..."
"... Damn, I'm late to the party again. It's probably been said already, but Iran's response is pure genius. Early warning to try to avoid casualties, speaks volumes about the differences between the evil empire and the Iranians. ..."
"... Unless one entertains the belief that Iran's missile attacks all misfired and missed their human targets-which appears to be the view that the friends of Israel and those who believe in the indefatigability of the US military, hold- then what Iran has just provided is spectacular confirmation that, short of a nuclear attack, there is nothing that the US can do, but go. ..."
"... Clearly its bases cannot be defended, that is what the craters and smashed buildings are telling them. If the Secretary of Defense wants to wait for a written request to leave the country that is his privilege-he's lucky not to be living there- but there is no way that the US forces can stay there. They have become unwelcome guests. ..."
"... People voted for Trump primarily for two reasons: Obama and the D-Party had stabbed them in the back allowing millions to lose their homes while the fraudulent banksters got away scot-free and with $Trillions too-boot, and they knew Clinton was a deranged warmonger while Trump talked reasonably about the Outlaw US Empire's many Imperial Follies. In short, Trump was seen by many as the lesser of two evils. No, I voted Green. ..."
"... It sounds as though Abdel Mahdi is being forced into the popular opinion. The US is being reduced into its best defended bases. Where from there, when those bases are isolated? ..."
"... The US did not escalate today. Trump's speech was all bluster and falsehood, directed almost exclusively to American audience in the interest of domestic politics. ..."
"... It is also possible that what Pompeo and Esper and Netanyahoo are seeking to accomplish is to maintain the highest level of tension possible without precipitating actual war. This is because all parties recognize that actual war with Iran would entail the destruction of much of Israel's infrastructure and many thousands of Israeli casualties, and these are prices too high to pay for the overthrowing of even the "evil" Iranian "regime". ..."
"... The Iranians have just displayed that they can and will attack targets with precision. No message? Seriously? You've missed the bigger picture. Iran have scored one on the Strategic level. What you're also missing is that Iraq is moving even closer to Iranian and Chinese-Russian orbit. ..."
"... Iran communicated its intent to strike US targets in Iraq directly to the Iraqi Prime Minister a full two hours prior to the missiles being launched; Iraq then shared this information with US military commanders, who were able to ensure all US troops were in hardened shelters at the time of the attack. ..."
Iran told the US they were going to attack and what areas.
Of course the US military is not going to abandon its radar installation is it? Maybe there
were a few others stationed where survival was iffy. If they die then not surprising that their
deaths were covered up because they were told those areas would be hit.
That is the reason we had the Trump presser today that was projection of, we got the
message, don't do any more...stand down.
If the latest about bombs in the Baghdad Green Zone are accurate then either more Iran or
some other factor wanting to trigger US response or ???
We are all still alive so China/Russia is backstopping Iran from nuclear attack seems
clear
With those poor disenfranchised American folks putting all their hope in trump and his
agenda, are they realizing the benefits of their support yet? I've read 71% of young
Americans can't afford to buy a home now the money men have inflated prices to the extreme.
Trump's people, the money men.
Did they vote for him as a show of support for his granting every wish Netanyahu ever
had?
Did they vote for him to support Netanyahu's aggression against his chosen foe, which
clearly was an effort to cast the spear of fear into the hearts of Israeli's?
Demagogues and wannabes set about to rule by making the population afraid.
Walter
Thanks for the explanation.In layman terms and I would guess many professions and trades,
speed and velocity are interchangeable.
Laguerre. Hopefully you are right on the Kurds and Sunnis, but the US ability to
enlist proxies has always surprised me. There always seem to be corruptible people
anywhere, plus others interested in using the US for their small time ends. But Iraq has
changed with the killing of Soleimani. Anti US may end up trumping local grievances for the
majority.
Newspeak: IRAN APPEARS TO BE STANDING DOWN. Imperial words when attacked directly.
What is lost in all this debate whether this was Kabuki or not is that Iran went toe to
toe with the empire -- directly. Pissed on the red lines set by the empire a day earlier.
No need for proxies. No need for false flag from the enemies. Iran has justified legality
under article 51 as Zarif pointed out.
Terror needed re-balancing, and for now, balance of terror has been established.
Iran has been patiently demonstrating its capabilities. The following terms came
into the vernacular and are associated with those capabilities: Stena Impero/Adryan Darya,
Khurais and Abqaiq, RQ-4A Global Hawk, PMU/PMF and many others, and now, Ain
al-Asad.
US cannot afford to fight a war with Iran directly. If so, it would have to fight
from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, so, just be ready for skirmishes here and there. I
see RSH is posting here now. He has been predicting a war between the two nations by the
end of 2010, end of 2011, end of 2012, and on and on, on other sites. Haven't read enough
of his comments to see if it's now by the end of 2020?
The stage rigging is on plain display here. This was arranged and calculated well in
advance. Arranged by someone with power to compel obedience, who would expect perfect
compliance to a scheme with many moving parts. So may parts of this might have gone wrong,
with WW3 as the consequence of a mistake.
I completely agree, I think this entire thing is a precursor to something much worse,
such as a massive false-flag that will let this conflict turn hot. Last night was but a
small taste or using Iranian wording 'mosquito bite'. People are quick to dismiss that war
would never be a viable option for the powers that be. When really they have been setting
the stage for global calamity for quite some time. The Iran/US/Israel theater is just the
first of a number of dominoes that have been carefully set up (NK-US; India-Pakistan;
Russia-NATO) to name but a few. Tensions are intentionally being ratcheted up for a major
cascading explosion that will ripple around the globe. The ponzi economy bubble-game they
have created during the last 20 years is part of that plan to trigger even worse panic
among the populace. Having said all of this, it seems to me that they want Trump to still
be re-elected before things really turn sour, so there seems to be some time left, which is
why the current de-escalation.
But I think both Iran and North Korea will keep the pressure on the US high
throughout this election year, entirely intentional of course.
Mao , Jan 8 2020 20:28 utc |
237ben , Jan 8 2020 20:30 utc |
238
Damn, I'm late to the party again. It's probably been said already, but Iran's response
is pure genius. Early warning to try to avoid casualties, speaks volumes about the
differences between the evil empire and the Iranians.
Thanks b, and all. So much better coming here, as opposed to the MSM..
Mao , Jan 8 2020 20:30 utc |
239WJ , Jan 8 2020 20:31 utc |
240
It all depends now on Trump's reelection strategy: Will he run on bringing the troops home
or will he run on another Middle East war.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 8 2020 16:34 utc | 108
Were I a zionist advisor/donor to Trump, I would advise/blackmail him to do the
following: Run a 2020 campaign premised on bringing the troops home, and indeed bring
enough of them home (or to Germany) to make that plausible. Then, after you win the
election, stage some action or invent some pretext (we control the media and can help you
do both) that requires you do go to war against Iran. It will be unpopular and many of your
citizens will die. But you are in your second term, we have given you lots of $$$$, and we
still have that video tape from the late 1990s of you and the 14-year old eastern european
girl.
Unless one entertains the belief that Iran's missile attacks all misfired and missed
their human targets-which appears to be the view that the friends of Israel and those who
believe in the indefatigability of the US military, hold- then what Iran has just provided
is spectacular confirmation that, short of a nuclear attack, there is nothing that the US
can do, but go.
Clearly its bases cannot be defended, that is what the craters and smashed buildings
are telling them. If the Secretary of Defense wants to wait for a written request to leave
the country that is his privilege-he's lucky not to be living there- but there is no way
that the US forces can stay there. They have become unwelcome guests.
Of course there are still those who tell us that Iraqi public opinion is divided and
that the sunni and the Kurds will be willing agents of the imperialists: I don't think so.
What the US has done is to unite Iraqis around nationalist objects and to close the
carefully opened divide between the sects. They have come full circle since 2003 and now
even the Iraqi members of ISIS (who are a small minority in the Foreign Legion of Uighurs,
Bosnians, Albanians, Chechens and wahhabis) will not serve as a wedge to keep Iraqis
fighting each other.
Or Iran: it has taken trillions of dollars and decades for Washington to knock it into
the densest politicians' heads but now everyone understands:
"The US is our enemy, it sees us as untermenschen to be exterminated like vermin. In
order to survive and to rebuild our lives and communities we must expel them. We have no
choice.
First we will ask the Swiss Embassy to tell them to leave, then we will pass resolutions
in Parliament, and put on fireworks displays at their bases. And they will leave."
And next will come the matter of Palestine, and the al quds Soleimani's brigade was
named for. Israel is beginning to look very lonely now in the Levant- a very abusive,
violent and noisy neighbour given to trespassing and larceny.
"Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi -- according to well-informed sources in Baghdad --
answered that "this act may carry devastating results on the Middle East: Iraq refuses to
become the theatre for a US-Iran war".
The Iranian official replied: "Those who began this cycle of violence are the US, not
Iran; the decision has been taken."
Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi informed the US forces of the Iranian decision. US declared a
state of emergency and alerted all US bases in Iraq and the region in advance of the
attack.
Iran bombed the most significant US military base in Iraq, Ayn al-Assad, where just in
the last two days, the US command had gathered the largest number of forces. Many US bases,
particularly in Shia controlled areas and around Baghdad, were evacuated in the last days
for security reason towards Ayn al-Assad, a base that holds anti-nuclear shelters."
Easy to see why the US approved of Mahdi as president. A pissweak appeaser how can do no
more than write letters to the UN. If he doesn't want a US Iran war in Iraq then he should
be booting the yanks out as the Yanks are based there purely on Iran's account. What Mahdi
is doing amounts to providing sanctuary to the US on Iran's border.
Some of us are indeed quite skeptical that there were no casualties reported whatsoever
- by "Western" media outlets. This commenter previously noted that it would be in the US
establishment's interest to downplay the impact of the attack as much as possible.
Furthermore, to those who are wondering how true casualty figures could be prevented from
being leaked, all the US government has to do is declare such information classified, at
which point it becomes a serious felony (think Snowden or Manning) to leak it.
>>b) The fact that Suleimani was a national hero for a nation of 82 million people
and also for 150 million of shia around the world, mourned by millions in the streets, make
a bigger Trump "victory" over the Iranian "regime", and it is a powerful advice to the
others leaders and commanders in the world that try to fight or oppose to USA.
This is not a gain, the US will be hated and sabotaged by the many shia groups across
the world (a young and growing demographic with combat experience), and there will be many
covert activities against it all over the place. An american dying here and there, a US
company sabotaged here and there. The US will be very busy fighting shia groups undercover
just as it needs to compete with Russia and China, not to mention the security costs. They
will probaly give tacit support to some sunni groups already fighting the US. Taliban
getting manpads and targeting info of US presence in Afghainstan? No, this is not good news
for the US. It means having more and more enemies everywhere and dividing resources into
many fronts. Taking on Russia, China and Iran/Iraq/Shia Crescent will to be too much. The
debt clock is ticking.
>>g) The retaliation of the PMU lob some katyusha rockets in the backyard of few
US bases
No, they will simply make it impossible for any american to get out outside of the
Embassy in Iraq. Workers, companies etc. will be driven out by harrassment.
>>h) Trump is defiant about not leaving Iraq, I think at the end they will go but
after they have a very good deal. Of course it is all about the Iraqi oil, in exchange for
the American blood and money wasted in Iraq. Iraq has the biggest oil reserves in the world
and USA want a good chunk of them, they never ever leave "giving" all of them to the
Chinese or Iranians or anybody else. Trump does not want US soldiers in Iraq, but he wants
the oil above anything else (it is condition "sine qua non" to maintain the Empire)
You don't know much about Iraq then. Iraq (including elites) does not want the US there.
It does not want to be a battlefield and it does not want to have Shia leaders attacked in
their own country. This is a Red Line for iraqis. Muqtada Al Sadr, the most influential
person in Iraq, who kicked the arse of the US occupation in 2004-2007 wants the US and even
the Embassy out, embargo on US products, etc. Iraqi shia are not intimidated by the US, far
from it, they have seen far worse in the past and that only angered them even more. Iraq
will move into China-Russia-Iran orbit, this is a done deal. A chinese delegation just
arrived in Iraq to provide security solutions for the country.
>> Trump has now the full enthusiastic support of the AIPAC and all the others
powerful Israeli lobby he will have more money than required for the election. He has
demonstrated he is the best possible POTUS for Israel.
This is debatable, considering that 80 % of US jews voted against Trump. Israel is not
the only issue for US jews. They do not like loud mouthed white racists. US media is an
expression of US jews and US media continues to be highly hostile to Trump. If they really
wanted him, media would be supportive.
j) In the short term USA will leave Syria and in the medium term Iraq, OK, but they
never ever leave "all the region", they need to be there to maintain the "American Way of
Live" (US $ as reserve currency)
There will be less US presence in the Middle East and it won't be just Syria, Iraq and
Afghanistan drawdowns. US debt levels point to unsustainable military spending. That is, in
2025 - 2030 the US will be forced to cut military spending significantly. Even now the US
is cutting the number of ships due to lack of money. So in general, there will be less US
presence everywhere, including in the Middle East. Too much debt.
As for Iraq, the US HQ for Iraq was just evacuated to Kuwait, US forces stopped
operations and are confinded to their bases (defacto house arrest), and US workers are
fleeing the country.
>>If nothing dramatically change, I expect a crushing victory of Trump in the
coming US election, he has all the cards now in his hand, and he will not waste them.
And i see people in the US and all over the world deeply disturbed by his behavior.
People want calm, not never ending drama, threats, sexism, racism, vulgarity and
warmongering. Women (majority of voters) do not like such behavior. Women and minorites are
very hostile to Trump due to this. Republicans lost the House and it looks like someone did
not get the message. Even if Trump somehow wins, this will lead to civil war like situation
in the US due to the changing demographics. Minorities DO NOT want Trump and their numbers
will only be increasing far into the future. This means growing division and infighting
within the US.
You look at this through the eyes of an American, that is why you see it as 'kabuki' and
'face saving' weakness, because as an American your answer is wholesale slaughter. Body
count is your metric of success.
America cant retaliate because they know the next blow will bleed. They were unable to
intercept the incoming missiles because US point defenses are mediocre. Once a projectile
gets past the patriots, not a difficult task, they will only face some rail mounted
stingers and 20 mm cannon. Has to be scarry for the dumb grunts.
I won't attack you or your post, but it is no good manners to enter somebody's house and
speak shit. If your family didn't teach you this, and your education didn't manage to
polish the animal in you, then you are a lost case, no need to deal with you. You'll live
on mother earth and then die without having any good impact whatsoever.
People voted for Trump primarily for two reasons: Obama and the D-Party had stabbed
them in the back allowing millions to lose their homes while the fraudulent banksters got
away scot-free and with $Trillions too-boot, and they knew Clinton was a deranged warmonger
while Trump talked reasonably about the Outlaw US Empire's many Imperial Follies. In short,
Trump was seen by many as the lesser of two evils. No, I voted Green.
If you read Dr.
Hudson's analysis and the transcript from this show , you'll
be informed about a great many facts about the Outlaw US Empire that the vast majority of
its citizens are unaware of thanks to BigLie Media. And I could direct you to dozens of
additional examples that provide even more facts about the situation, the core of the
problem and potential solutions.
Many good academics and others have tried to inform the USA's citizenry about the why of
their dilemma and provided suggestions for action, but their voices are drowned out by
what's known as the Establishment Narrative parroted by BigLie Media. IMO, Sanders would
have waxed Trump in 2016, but he was clearly the target of a conspiracy to prevent him from
gaining the D-Party nomination. IMO, the only reason he endorsed Clinton was he knew of the
sort of domestic mayhem Trump and the R-Party would wreck upon his supporters. Please,
before denigrating the masses within the Evil Outlaw US Empire, try to discover why they
behave as they do. Lumping them all together and calling them dumb fuck-wits won't get you
anywhere and only serves to exacerbate things.
It sounds as though Abdel Mahdi is being forced into the popular opinion. The US is
being reduced into its best defended bases. Where from there, when those bases are
isolated?
I am reposting this.
The Iranians care, they sent some of the best gifts, and they're rightly proud of them.
A Hallmark kinna time, the Holidays n all that.
Brother, I have read about the problems involved, I took some calculus long ago, but the
engineering behind what Iran has demonstrated in very complex. They put the clown on the
back foot.
There is a realignment of strategy in the Celestial Heaven of DC... Not a change in
goal, just "whaddwe do now, how r we gunna smash 'em"...
The US did not escalate today. Trump's speech was all bluster and falsehood, directed
almost exclusively to American audience in the interest of domestic politics. If
anything, the call for NATO to step up was an indication the Americans planned to step
back. The Turks will not be pouring troops into Iraq. Trump was referring to the Europeans.
The US corporate media continues to report with subdued tone, with ultra hawkish Fox News
continuing to describe the struck airbases as "Iraqi facilities".
This is true only on the assumption that the "US establishment" is united in seeking to
de-escalate with Iran. But evidence suggests that at least two members of that
establishment--Pompeo and Esper--are clearly not interested in de-escalation
(notwithstanding Pompeo's directive to the embassies). For them, the death of dozens of
American soldiers could only be a good thing, as it would easily be manipulated in the
press to motivate the US populace's desire for retribution.
It is also possible that what Pompeo and Esper and Netanyahoo are seeking to
accomplish is to maintain the highest level of tension possible without precipitating
actual war. This is because all parties recognize that actual war with Iran would entail
the destruction of much of Israel's infrastructure and many thousands of Israeli
casualties, and these are prices too high to pay for the overthrowing of even the "evil"
Iranian "regime".
De-escalation with Iran hurts Netanyahoo; actual war with Iran hurts Netanyahoo. What
helps Netanyahoo is the constant threat of war with Iran along with the public perception
that only he, of all Israeli politicians, has the sufficient resolve to face down the
Persian menace. Because I am of the view that Israel is not just an outpost of the US
empire but in many cases the tail that wags the dog of this empire, I fully expect that the
US will continue to seek to ride the escalation-de-escalation wave with Iran until
Netanyahoo either stabilizes his domestic position in Israel or loses it altogether.
Actually the Hashd Al Shaabi militia, which is part of the Iraqi military, wanted to
take over the US Embassy and Mehdi threatened to resign over that, not over the protests in
general or the harrassment of the US Embassy. This is why iraqi troops stayed out as the
Embassy was besieged. He chose China over the US for reconstruction of Iraq and made very
compromising remarks about Trump (how he threatened to put snipers killing people in Iraq,
how Soleimani was there for diplomatic mission as peace envoy, etc.)
Mehdi is an expression of the majority Shia sentiment in Iraq - it is him who came to
Parliament to demand a resolution for US withdrawal from the country. As for Iraqi Shia
sentiment, numerically speaking, 80 % of Shia MPs and the PM demanded a US withdrawal from
the country.
What is the source for the account that the Swiss embassy received advance warning of the
missile strike?
I haven't seen it elsewhere. I'm not saying that to knock it, but since b doesn't
mention or link to a source, and I don't see it discussed in comments, I'd like to know
where he got that report from.
CNN.com says Iran reached out through various channels, "including through Switzerland
and other countries", but after the strike, to make known there was nothing else on
the way.
If Iran succeeds in forcing the Empire out, then obviously the zionists would be unable
to remain more than briefly. But without zionists Jews and Arabs have always got along
reasonably well... So we may imagine "Israel" going through a "phase change" when Empire
departs...because then the decent people can have a say in things, then justice may prevail
- something all Abrahamic Creeds respect and call for as a basic foundation. Of course
there's nothing pretty about a civil war in Israel, or as it is at present "forward
operating base zion"
"The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil
and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason."
This entire episode has been an absolute disaster for the Iranians. They sent no message
to the US.
Disaster? How so? The Iranians have just displayed that they can and will attack
targets with precision. No message? Seriously? You've missed the bigger picture. Iran have
scored one on the Strategic level. What you're also missing is that Iraq is moving even
closer to Iranian and Chinese-Russian orbit.
The missile strikes is also a message to Iranian regional competitors. I can guarantee
you Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have taken notice.
I'm expecting more small level attacks on US assets in Iraq and it'll likely spread to
other neighboring countries. Death by a thousand cuts. In the end, the US will have no
choice but to leave Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
Scott Ritter also says there was advance warning, though via the Iraqi government, not
mentioning the Swiss embassy in Tehran:
Iran communicated its intent to strike US targets in Iraq directly to the Iraqi Prime
Minister a full two hours prior to the missiles being launched; Iraq then shared this
information with US military commanders, who were able to ensure all US troops were in
hardened shelters at the time of the attack.
Ritter doesn't give his sourcing either. Of course the significant thing is that such
advance warning was given at all. I'd just like to know how solid the factual basis is, and
to what extent it is officially confirmed by any of the relevant governments.
If US soldiers were killed by the attack, this can't be hidden forever; sooner or later,
coffins will go back home and families will be informed. Specially if it's as high as 80.
Though for the moment, the Pentagon can stay quiet, and won't publicly acknowledge it, the
bodies will have to come back to the US and be buried - as far as I know, they're not
janissaries but US military, most have relatives, friends and family and can't be
disappeared just like that.
The USS Liberty is a different situation: the US didn't hide for decades that people
were lost in the bombing, it didn't acknowledge that it was a deliberate attack. Pretty
much the opposite case to the present one.
"... This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless policy. ..."
This crisis was sparked by Donald Trump. Trump withdrew from the
deal that had stopped Iran's nuclear weapons program, leading Iran to restart its nuclear
program. Trump ramped up economic pressure and sent more US troops to the region, and tensions
grew. Then the US killed
Gen Qassem Suleimani , signaling a significant escalation, to which Iran responded with an
attack on Iraqi bases where US and Iraqi troops are stationed.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was when Trump
took office
It is up to Congress and the American people to force Trump to adopt a more pragmatic path.
For too long Congress has ceded to the executive branch its authority to determine when America
goes to war, and the current crisis with Iran is exactly the kind of moment that requires
intense coordination between the legislative and executive branches. The president cannot start
a war without congressional authorization, and with the erratic Trump in office, Congress must
make that clear by cutting off the use of funds for war with Iran.
This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America
fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute
tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless
policy. America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was
when Trump took office – even worse off than we were on 1 January 2020. Today, Iran is
advancing its nuclear program, America has suspended its anti-Isis campaign, Iraq's parliament
has voted to evict US troops from the country, and we are in a dangerous military standoff with
Iran.
Digging out of this hole will be difficult and this administration is not capable of it.
Over the long run, future administrations will need to reorient America's goals and policies.
America needs to re-enter the nuclear deal and begin negotiations to strengthen it; work with
partners like Iraq – without a large US troop presence – in countering potential
threats like a resurgence of Isis; and adopt a broader regional policy that focuses on
protecting US interests and standing up for human rights and democracy rather than picking
sides in a regional civil war between dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Achieving US goals in the region will not be possible with a mere de-escalation of tensions
– we need to find a new path towards Iran and the Middle East.
America's top diplomat does not seem to think his job is to prevent war.
The
Washington Post
dives deeply into what is laughingly called the administration*'s "process" leading up to the decision
to kill Qasem Soleimani with fire last week. In short, all the "imminent threat" palaver was pure moonshine. According to the
Post,
this particular catastrophe was brewed up for a while amid the stalactites in the mind of Mike Pompeo, a Secretary
of State who makes Henry Kissinger look like Gandhi.
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve
the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence,
the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes
to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian
aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
Poor Mike was morose. So, in an effort to bring himself out of the dumps, Mike decided to keep feeding the
rats in the president*'s head.
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But
that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor
and injuring service members. On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where
the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior
U.S. officials said.
The whole squad got involved on this one.
Alex Wong
Getty Images
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran. One significant
factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the
U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the
decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
First-in-His-Class Mike Pompeo knows his audience. There's no question that he knows how to get what he wants
from a guy who doesn't know anything about anything, and who may have gone, as George V. Higgins once put it, as soft as church
music. This, I guess, is a skill. Of course, Pompeo's job is easier because the president* is still a raving maniac on the electric
Twitter machine. A handy compilation:
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader
who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime,
including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits
in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any
Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many
years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE
HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
They attacked us, & we hit back. If they attack again, which I would strongly advise them not to do, we will hit them harder
than they have ever been hit before!
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and
without hesitation!
And, this, perhaps my favorite piece of presidentin" yet.
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target,
the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required,
but is given nevertheless!
You have been informed, Congress. You have been informed, Iran.
Mike Pompeo is officially the Secretary of State. Apparently, he is also unofficially the
Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the very model of a
modern major bureaucrat. He's running things on war and peace these days because the president* sure as hell isn't.
He's a Dollar Store Kissinger with nobody to restrain him. And he has no compunction whatsoever about lying in
public -- about Barack Obama, and about the definition of the word "imminent," which, to Pompeo, seems to extend back in
time to the Persian Empire and forward into the second term of the Malia Obama administration.
Pompeo met the press on Tuesday and everything he said was completely worthless. For example,
did you know that the Iran nuclear deal hastened the development of Iran's nuclear capacity, but that pulling out of
it, and frying the second-highest official of their government, slowed it down? Mike Pompeo knows that.
President Trump could not be more clear. On our watch, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon and, when we came into
office, Iran was on a pathway that had been provided by the nuclear deal, which clearly gave them the opportunity
to get those nuclear weapons. We won't let that happen...It's not political. The previous administration made a
different choice. They chose to underwrite and appease. We have chose to confront and contain.
But that's not political, you appeasing, underwriting wimps who worked for 11 years to get a
deal with these people. And that goes for all you appeasing, underwriting European bastards as well, who don't think
this president* knows anything about anything. And, as to the whole imminence thing, well, everything is imminent
sometime, and it's five o'clock somewhere.
"We know what happened at the end of last year in December ultimately leading to the death of an American. If
you're looking for imminence, you needn't look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken
against Soleimani. Then you had in addition to that what we could clearly see was continuing efforts on behalf of
this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of
many more Americans. It was the right decision, we got it right."
Yeah, they got nothing -- except the power, of course. The last time we had a terrible Republican
president determined to lie us into a war in the Middle East, he and his people at least did not do so by employing
utter and transparent gibberish. Times change.
gjohnsit on Mon,
01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani
to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.
It turns out that
Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.
"Seven aircraft and three military vehicles were destroyed in the attack," said the
statement, which included photos of aircraft ablaze and an al Shabaab militant standing
nearby. In a tweet, the US Africa Command confirmed an attack on the Manda Bay Airfield had
occurred.
One US military service member and two contractors were killed in an Islamist attack on a
military base in Kenya.
Islamist militant group al-Shabab attacked the base, used by Kenyan and US forces, in the
popular coastal region of Lamu on Sunday.
The US military said in a statement that two others from the Department of Defense were
wounded.
"The wounded Americans are currently in stable condition and being evacuated," the US
military's Africa Command said.
But the response of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu , was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump's staunchest
supporters on the world stage.
He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: "The assassination of Suleimani
isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be
dragged into it."
"... Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States." ..."
"... "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said. ..."
"The Guardian" journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says that before the attack on Qassem
Soleimani in Baghdad last week "there was an understanding between the Americans and the
Iranians" that allowed officials from Iran and the U.S. to move freely within Iraq and
maintained relative goodwill toward American bases.
"The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States
coexisted in Iraq," he said.
Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as
anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States."
"Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in
Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in
Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani
was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He
stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the
Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the
Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the
game have totally changed," he said.
AMY GOODMAN: Ghaith, can you comment on this new information that's come to light about the
timing of Soleimani's assassination Friday morning? Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister Adel
Abdul-Mahdi has revealed he had plans to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed to
discuss a Saudi proposal to defuse tension in the region. Mahdi said, quote, "He came to
deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to
Iran" -- Saudi Arabia, obviously, a well-known enemy of Iran. Was he set up? Talk about the
significance of this.
GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, it is very significant if it's actually General Qassem Soleimani
came to Iraq to deliver this message, if it was actually there was a process of negotiations in
the region. We know that Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government, in general, over the last year
had been trying to position Iraq as this middle power, as this power where both -- you know, as
a country that has a relationship with both Iran and the United States. In that awkward place
Iraq found itself in, Iraq has tried to maximize on this. So they started back in summer and
fall, when there was an escalation between Iran and the United States, when Iran shot down an
American drone. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi fly to Iran, try to mediate. We've seen Adel
Abdul-Mahdi open channels of communications with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia.
So, if it actually, the killing of General Soleimani, ended that peace initiative, it will
be kind of disastrous in the region, because, as Narges was saying earlier, it is -- you know,
Pompeo is speaking about Iran being this ultimate evil in the region, as this crescent of
Shias, as if they just arrived in the past 10 years in the region. The fact if we see Iran's
reactions, it's always a reaction to an American provocation. You've seen the occupation of
Iraq in 2003. You've seen Iran declared as an "axis of evil." So, if you see it from an Iranian
perspective, it's always this existential threat coming from the United States. And I don't
think there is a more existential threat than in past year. So, yes, I know -- I mean, I think
Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government were trying to find this middle ground, which I think
is totally lost, because even Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the person who was trying to find this middle
ground, was the person who proposed this law yesterday in the Parliament to expel all American
troops from the country.
And I would like to add like another thing. The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in
which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq. So, from 2013, '14, we, as
journalists, we've seen on the frontlines how the proxies of each power have been helping each
other. So we've seen Iranian advisers helping the American-trained Iraqi Army unit or
counterterrorism unit in the fight against ISIS. In the same sense, we've seen American
airstrikes on threats to these -- kind of to ISIS when it was threatening these militias. That
coexistence, it didn't only come from both having a -- sharing an enemy, which is ISIS, or
Daesh, but also these were the rules of the game. These were the rules in which Qassem
Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad
airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He
took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in
the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans
and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would
have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, I think the rules of the game have
totally changed.
So now I think the first victim of the assassination will be the American bases in Iraq. I
don't see any way where the Americans can keep their presence as they did before the
assassination of Soleimani. And even the people in the streets, even the people who opposes
Iran, who opposes the presence of Iranian militias in power and politics, the corruption of
these pro-Iranian parties, even those people would look at these American bases now as not as a
force that came to help them in the fight against ISIS, but a force that's dragging them into a
war between Iran and the United States.
As the Trump Administration continues to
barrel toward a war with Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a press
conference in which he once again claimed that every dubious accusation made by the
administration was true, and the internally inconsistent comments among top officials are all
somehow in agreement.
Pompeo's comments, even the ones that made no sense or were obviously untrue, were echoed
across US media outlets as absolute facts following the briefing. Everyone was clearly more
comfortable just reporting " Pompeo says "
than analyzing it.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
was very critical of some of the worst claims Pompeo made , saying one would have to be
brain-dead to believe them. He noted it made no sense to attack Iran to "preempt" attacks when
the attack just made attacks even more likely.
Pompeo was largely dismissive of questions about the US attack, and rejected claims that
Gen. Qassem Soleimani was working on Saudi diplomacy, saying
nobody believed Soleimani was engaged in diplomacy and that Iranian FM was lying about
that. In reality, Iraq's PM Adel Abdul Mahdi was the one who broke the story of why Soleimani
was in Iraq. Instead of evidence to the contrary, Pompeo just denied.
On the question of the US barring Zarif from the UN in violation of the headquarters
agreement, Pompeo said the US doesn't comment on why they deny people entrance, and insisted
that the US always complies with the headquarters agreement, despite it flat out saying you
can't block officials from speaking at the UN, and the US doing exactly that.
The closest anyone at the briefing came to calling Pompeo on his contradictions was on the
matter of the US attacking cultural sites. President Trump threatened to attack Iranian
cultural sites on Saturday, Pompeo said Trump never said that on Sunday, and Trump said it
again on Sunday evening. Pompeo was asked to address this.
Pompeo said that what he said, that Trump never said there would be attacks on cultural
sites, was "completely consistent with what the President has said," which repeatedly was that
he intends to attack cultural sites. This was a bit too glaring, and one of the press said "No,
but the President has -" before being interrupted by Pompeo.
At this point, Pompeo went off on a tangent claiming that the ayatollah is the "real threat"
to Iranian culture. When asked if that meant US attacks on cultural sites are "ruled out,"
despite Trump's comments, Pompeo promptly ended the briefing and left.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also claimed on Tuesday that Soleimani was planning to
attack Americans "within days" if the US hadn't killed him. As with Pompeo, his claim did not
include any evidence, and ask with Pompeo's claims, the press is echoing it.
Mike Pompeo was on the TeeVee today scoffing at those who do not agree with him and the
Ziocon inspired "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. It must be a terrible thing for
intelligence analysts of integrity and actual Middle East knowledge and experience to have to
try to brief him and Trump, people who KNOW, KNOW from some superior source of knowledge that
Iran is the worst threat to the world since Nazi Germany, or was it Saddam's Iraq that was the
worst threat since "beautiful Adolf?"
The "maximum pressure" campaign is born of Zionist terrors, terrors deeply felt. It is the
same kind of campaign that has been waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all
other enemies great and small. This approach does not seem to have done much for Israel. The
terrors are still there.
Someone sent me the news tape linked below from Aleppo in NW Syria. I have watched it a
number of times. You need some ability in Arabic to understand it. The tape was filmed in
several Christian churches in Aleppo where these two men (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) are
described from the pulpit and in the street as "heroic martyr victims of criminal American
state terrorism." Pompeo likes to describe Soleimani as the instigator of "massacre" and
"genocide" in Syria. Strangely (irony) the Syriac, Armenian Uniate and Presbyterian ministers
of the Gospel in this tape do not see him and al-Muhandis that way. They see them as men who
helped to defend Aleppo and its minority populations from the wrath of Sunni jihadi Salafists
like ISIS and the AQ affiliates in Syria. They see them and Lebanese Hizbullah as having helped
save these Christians by fighting alongside the Syrian Army, Russia and other allies like the
Druze and Christian militias.
It should be remembered that the US was intent on and may still be intent on replacing the
multi-confessional government of Syria with the forces of medieval tyranny. Everyone who really
knows anything about the Syrian Civil War knows that the essential character of the New Syrian
Army, so beloved by McCain, Graham and the other Ziocons was always jihadi and it was always
fully supported by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a project in establishing Sunni triumphalism. They
and the self proclaimed jihadis of HTS (AQ) are still supported in Idlib and western Aleppo
provinces both by the Saudis and the present Islamist and neo-Ottoman government of Turkey.
Well pilgrims, there are Christmas trees in the newly re-built Christian churches of Aleppo
and these, my brothers and sisters in Christ remember who stood by them in "the last
ditch."
"Currently there are at least 600 churches and 500,000–1,000,000 Christians in Iran."
wiki below. Are they dhimmis? Yes, but they are there. There are no churches in Saudi
Arabia, not a single one and Christianity is a banned religion. These are our allies?
Mr. Jefferson wrote that "he feared for his country when he remembered that God is just." He
meant Virginia but I fear in the same way for the United States. pl
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
gjohnsit on Mon,
01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani
to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.
It turns out that
Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.
"... Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. ..."
"... As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example: ..."
"... Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and actions of Muqtada al-Sadr. ..."
"... Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was. ..."
Before discussing what happens next and the big picture implications, it's worth pointing
out the incredible number of blatant lies and overall clownishness that emerged from U.S.
officials in the assassination's aftermath. It started with
claims from Trump that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans and was caught
in the act. Mass media did its job and uncritically parroted this line, which was quickly
exposed as a complete falsehood.
CNN anchor uncritically repeating government lies.
This is what mass media does to get wars going. https://t.co/QK1JET7TIj
It's incredibly telling that CNN would swallow this fact-free claim with total credulity
within weeks of discovering the extent of the lies told about
Syrian chemical attacks and
the Afghanistan war . Meanwhile, when a reporter asked a state department official for some
clarification on what sorts of attacks were imminent, this is what transpired.
When asked by a reporter for details about what kinds of imminent attacks Soleimani was
planning, the State Dept. responds with:
"Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things?"
Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as
part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to
Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth
get in the way of a good story.
Iraqi Prime Minister AbdulMahdi accuses Trump of deceiving him in order to assassinate
Suleimani. Trump, according to P.M. lied about wanting a diplomatic solution in order to get
Suleimani on a plane to Baghdad in the open, where he was summarily executed. https://t.co/HKjyQqXNqP
As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who
genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example:
Pompeo on CNN says US has "every expectation" that people "in Iran will view the American
action last night as giving them freedom."
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Qassem Soleimani's daughter Zeinab were
among the hundreds of thousands mourning Soleimani in Tehran today. Iranian state TV put the
crowd size at 'millions,' though that number could not be verified. https://t.co/R6EbKh6Gow
Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future
role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important
things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a
resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and
actions of Muqtada al-Sadr.
WOW,
Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr orders the return of "Mahdi Army" in response the
American strike that killed Suleimani.
Mahdi Army fought against the US troops during the invasion in 2003. Sadr disbanded the
group in 2008.
Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been
a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either
country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him
to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more
dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was.
Going forward, Iran's response will be influenced to a great degree by what's already
transpired. There are three things worth noting. First, although many Trump supporters are
cheering the assassination, Americans are certainly
nowhere near united on this , with many including myself viewing it as a gigantic strategic
blunder. Second, it ratcheted up anti-American sentiment in Iraq to a huge degree without Iran
having to do anything, as highlighted above. Third, hardliners within Iran have been given an
enormous gift. With one drone strike, the situation went from grumblings and protests on the
ground to a scene where any sort of dissent in the air has been extinguished for the time
being.
Exactly right, which is why Iran will go more hardline if anything and more united.
If China admitted to taking out Trump even Maddow wouldn't cheer. https://t.co/zqaEDIoWH1
Iranian leadership will see these developments as important victories in their own right and
will likely craft a response taking stock of this much improved position. This means a total
focus on making the experience of American troops in the region untenable, which will be far
easier to achieve now.
If that's right, you can expect less shock and awe in the near-term, and more consolidation
of the various parties that were on the fence but have since shifted to a more anti-American
stance following Soleimani's death. Iran will start with the easy pickings, which consists of
consolidating its stronger position in Iraq and making dissidents feel shameful at home. That
said, Iran will have to publicly respond with some sort of a counterattack, but that event will
be carefully considered with Iran's primary objective in mind -- getting U.S. troops out of the
region.
This means no attacks on U.S. or European soil, and no attacks targeting civilians either.
Such a move would be as strategically counterproductive as Assad gassing Syrian cities after he
was winning the war (which is why many of us doubted the narrative) since it would merely
inflame American public opinion and give an excuse to attack Iran in Iran. There is no way
Iranian leadership is that stupid, so any such attack must be treated with the utmost
skepticism.
President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate
Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning "Imminent attacks" on US citizens.
I don't believe them.
Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about
Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the
phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming
Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of
lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran.
And before Trump's obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied
ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the
list goes on.
At some point, when we've been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a
"threat" that we must "take out" with a military attack, there comes a time where we must
assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have
provided nothing. So I don't believe them.
President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important
to Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the
assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States,
Iran's retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials
stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that
will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is
absolutely no reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased
risk of death for nothing.
In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior
Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government
– would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it
has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been
a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and
they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?
Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression
– and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong
defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from
the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It
makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the
bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US
interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed
overseas.
There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy
brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that
for America's sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East! (Republished from
The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
"I think there should be open hearings on this subject," Schiff told the
Washington Post in an interview published Monday. "The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran. That
requires the Congress to fully engage."
Asked for his thoughts on President Trump warning Iran that the U.S. will hit 52 sites, including cultural sites, if Tehran retaliates
the California Democrat said: "None of that could come out of the Pentagon. Absolutely no way."
... ... ...
Schiff 's comments to the Post come after he suggested Secretary of State Mike Pompeo misrepresented intelligence indicating
that killing Soleimani saved American lives.
"It was a reckless decision that increased the risk to America all around the world, not decreased it. When Secretary Pompeo says
that this decision to take out Qasem Soleimani saved American lives, saved European lives, he is expressing a personal opinion, not
an intelligence conclusion," he
told CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper. "I think it will increase the risk to Americans around the world. I have
not seen the intelligence that taking out Soleimani was going to either stop the plotting that is going on or decrease other risks
to the United States."
"... How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all in with Zionists and is one of them. ..."
"... I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds. ..."
How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them
into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's
request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how
depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all
in with Zionists and is one of them.
As reported by krollchem @ 67 and by b in this and the following post, the involvement of Trump directly in premeditated murder
cannot be absolved, and the circumstances are abhorrent to any patriotic American citizen. May God have mercy on the souls of
the peace makers, for they shall be called the sons of God.
I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous
grounds.
Where that will lead in terms of the rest of the US government I cannot say but VP Pence is also impeachable here, so
it is difficult to see who is least culpable in this. It may mean that there is need for a provisional government to be put in
place - not party organized. If impeachment proceeds apace as it should, behind the scenes such a people's approved peaceful
citizens coalition needs to be considered. This cannot stand as official US government policy. It is heinous.
I too, as forward @ 24 has done, sent prayers for the souls of the departed Iran general as well as his friend from Iraq and
their companions this morning in my home chapel. It is the Sunday before Christmas, old calendar. May the Lord bring them and
so many others before them to a place where the just repose.
The Trump administration has assassinated Iran's top military leader, Qassim Suleimani, and with the possibility of a serious escalation
in violent conflict, it's a good time to think about how propaganda works and train ourselves to avoid accidentally swallowing it.
The Iraq War, the bloodiest and costliest U.S. foreign policy calamity of the 21 st century, happened in part because
the population of the United States was insufficiently cynical about its government and got caught up in a wave of nationalistic
fervor. The same thing happened with World War I and the Vietnam War. Since a U.S./Iran war would be a disaster, it is vital that
everyone make sure they do not accidentally end up repeating the kinds of talking points that make war more likely.
Let us bear in mind, then, some of the basic lessons about war propaganda.
Things are not true because a government official says them.
I do not mean to treat you as stupid by making such a basic point, but plenty of journalists and opposition party politicians
do not understand this point's implications, so it needs to be said over and over. What happens in the leadup to war is that government
officials make claims about the enemy, and then those claims appear in newspapers ("U.S. officials say Saddam poses an imminent threat")
and then in the public consciousness, the "U.S. officials say" part disappears, so that the claim is taken for reality without ever
really being scrutinized. This happens because newspapers are incredibly irresponsible and believe that so long as you attach "Experts
say" or "President says" to a claim, you are off the hook when people end up believing it, because all you did was relay the fact
that a person said a thing, you didn't say it was true. This is the approach the New York Times took to Bush administration allegations
in the leadup to the Iraq War, and it meant that false claims could become headline news just because a high-ranking U.S. official
said them. [UPDATE: here's an example
from Vox, today, of a questionable government claim being magically transformed into a certain fact.]
In the context of Iran, let us consider some things Mike Pence tweeted about Qassim Suleimani:
"[Suleimani] assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September
11 terrorist attacks in the United States Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.
The world is a safer place today because Soleimani is gone."
It is possible, given these tweets, to publish the headline: "Suleimani plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats, says
Pence." That headline is technically true. But you should not publish that headline unless Pence provides some supporting evidence,
because what will happen in the discourse is that people will link to your news story to prove that Suleimani was plotting imminent
attacks.
To see how unsubstantiated claims get spread, let's think about the Afghanistan hijackers bit. David Harsanyi of the National
Review defends
Pence's claim about Suleimani helping the hijackers. Harsanyi cites the 9/11 Commission report, saying that the 9/11 commission
report concluded Iran aided the hijackers. The report
does indeed say that Iran allowed free
travel to some of the men who went on to carry out the 9/11 attacks. (The sentence cut off at the bottom of Harsanyi's screenshot,
however, rather crucially
says : "We have no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.") Harsanyi
admits that the report says absolutely nothing about Suleimani. But he argues that Pence was "mostly right," pointing out that Pence
did not say Iran knew these men would be the hijackers, merely that it allowed them passage.
Let's think about what is going on here. Pence is trying to convince us that Suleimani deserved to die, that it was necessary
for the U.S. to kill him, which will also mean that if Iran retaliates violently, that violence will be because Iran is an aggressive
power rather than because the U.S. just committed an unprovoked atrocity against one of its leaders, dropping a bomb on a popular
Iranian leader. So Pence wants to link Suleimani in your mind with 9/11, in order to get you blood boiling the same way you might
have felt in 2001 as you watched the Twin Towers fall.
There is no evidence that either Iran or Suleimani tried to help these men do 9/11. Harsanyi says that Pence does not technically
allege this. But he doesn't have to! What impression are people going to get from helped the hijackers? Pence hopes you'll
conflate Suleimani and Iran as one entity, then assume that if Iran ever aided these men in any way, it basically did 9/11 even if
it didn't have any clue that was what they were going to do.
This brings us to #2:
Do not be bullied into accepting simple-minded sloganeering
Let's say that, long before Ted Kaczynski began sending bombs through the mail, you once rented him an apartment. This was pure
coincidence. Back then he was just a Berkeley professor, you did not know he would turn out to be the Unabomber. It is, however,
possible, for me to say, and claim I am not technically lying, that you "housed and materially aided the Unabomber." (A friend of
mine once sold his house to the guy who turned out to be the Green River Killer, so this kind of situation does happen.)
Of course, it is incredibly dishonest of me to characterize what you did that way. You rented an apartment to a stranger, yet
I'm implying that you intentionally helped the Unabomber knowing he was the Unabomber. In sane times, people would see me as the
duplicitous one. But the leadup to war is often not a sane time, and these distinctions can get lost. In the Pence claim about Afghanistan,
for it to have any relevance to Suleimani, it would be critical to know (assuming the 9/11 commission report is accurate) whether
Iran actually could have known what the men it allowed to pass would ultimately do, and whether Suleimani was involved. But that
would involve thinking, and War Fever thrives on emotion rather than thought.
There are all kinds of ways in which you can bully people into accepting idiocy. Consider, for example, the statement "Nathan
Robinson thinks it's good to help terrorists who murder civilians." There is a way in which this is actually sort of true: I think
lawyers who aid those accused of terrible crimes do important work. If we are simple-minded and manipulative, we can call that "thinking
it's good to help terrorists," and during periods of War Fever, that's exactly what it will be called. There is a kind of cheap sophistry
that becomes ubiquitous:
I don't think Osama bin Laden should have been killed without an attempt to apprehend him. -- > So you think it's good
that Osama bin Laden was alive?
I think Iraqis were justified in resisting the U.S. invasion with force. -- > So you're saying it's good when U.S. soldiers
die?
I do not believe killing other countries' generals during peacetime is acceptable. -- > So you believe terrorists should
be allowed to operate with impunity.
I remember all this bullshit from my high school years. Opposing the invasion of Iraq meant loving Saddam Hussein and hating America.
Thinking 9/11 was the predictable consequence of U.S. actions meant believing 9/11 was justified. Of course, rational discussion
can expose these as completely unfair mischaracterizations, but every time war fever whips up, rational discussion becomes almost
impossible. In World War I, if you opposed the draft you were undermining your country in a time of war. During Vietnam, if you believed
the North Vietnamese had the more just case, you were a Communist traitor who endorsed every atrocity committed in the name of Ho
Chi Minh, and if you thought John McCain shouldn't have been bombing civilians in the first place then clearly you believed he should
have been tortured and you hated America.
"If you oppose assassinating Suleimani you must love terrorists" will be repeated on Fox News (and probably even on MSNBC).
Nationalism advocate Yoram Hazony
says there is something wrong with those who
do not "feel shame when our country is shamed" -- presumably those who do not feel wounded pride when America is emasculated by our
enemies are weak and pitiful. We should refuse to put up with these kind of cheap slurs, or even to let those who deploy them place
the burden of proof on us to refute them. (In 2004, Democrats worried that they did appear unpatriotic, and so they ran a
decorated war veteran, John Kerry, for president. That didn't work.)
Scrutinize the arguments
Here's Mike Pence again:
"[Suleimani] provided advanced deadly explosively formed projectiles, advanced weaponry, training, and guidance to Iraqi
insurgents used to conduct attacks on U.S. and coalition forces; directly responsible for the death of 603 U.S. service members,
along with thousands of wounded."
I am going to say something that is going to sound controversial if you buy into the kind of simple-minded logic we just
discussed: Saying that someone was "responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members" does not, in and of itself, tell us anything
about whether what they did was right or wrong. In order to believe it did, we would have to believe that the United States is
automatically right, and that countries opposing the United States are automatically wrong. That is indeed the logic that many
nationalists in this country follow; remember that when the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, causing hundreds of deaths,
George H.W. Bush said
that he would never apologize for America, no matter what the facts were. What if America did something wrong? That was
irrelevant, or rather impossible, because to Bush, a thing was right because America did it, even if that thing was the mass murder
of Iranian civilians.
One of the major justifications for murdering Suleimani is that he "caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers." He was thus an aggressor,
and could/should have been killed. That is where people like Pence want you to end your inquiry. But let us remember where those
soldiers were. Were they in Miami? No. They were in Iraq. Why were they in Iraq? Because we illegally invaded and seized a country.
Now, we can debate whether (1) there is actually sufficient evidence of Suleimani's direct involvement and (2) whether these
acts of violence can be justified, but to say that Suleimani has "American blood on his hands" is to say nothing at all without
an examination of whether the United States was in the right.
We have to think clearly in examining the arguments that are being made.
Here 's the Atlantic 's
George Packer on the execution:
"There was a case for killing Major General Qassem Soleimani. For two decades, as the commander of the Revolutionary Guards'
Quds Force, he executed Iran's long game of strategic depth in the Middle East -- arming and guiding proxy militias in Lebanon
and Iraq that became stronger than either state, giving Bashar al-Assad essential support to win the Syrian civil war at the cost
of half a million lives, waging a proxy war in Yemen against the hated Saudis, and repeatedly testing America and its allies with
military actions around the region for which Iran never seemed to pay a military price."
The article goes on to discuss whether this case is outweighed by the pragmatic case against killing him. But wait. Let's dwell
on this. Does this constitute a case for killing him? He assisted Bashar al-Assad. Okay, but presumably then killing Assad
would have been justified too? Is the rule here that our government is allowed unilaterally to execute the officials of other governments
who are responsible for many deaths? Are we the only ones who can do this? Can any government claim the right?
He assisted Yemen in its fight against "the hated Saudis." But is Saudi Arabia being hated for good reason? It is not enough to
say that someone committed violence without analyzing the underlying justice of the parties' relative claims.
Moreover, assumptions are made that if you can prove somebody committed a heinous act, what Trump did is justified. But that doesn't
follow: Unless we throw all law out the window, and extrajudicial punishment is suddenly acceptable, showing that Suleimani was a
war criminal doesn't prove that you can unilaterally kill him with a drone. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. So is George W. Bush.
But they should be captured and tried in a court, not bombed from the sky. The argument that Suleimani was planning imminent
attacks is relevant to whether you can stop him with violence (and requires persuasive proof), but mere allegations of murderous
past acts do not show that extrajudicial killings are legitimate.
It's very easy to come up with superficially persuasive arguments that can justify just about anything. The job of an intelligent
populace is to see whether those arguments can actually withstand scrutiny.
Keep the focus on what matters
"The main question about the strike isn't moral or even legal -- it's strategic." --
The Atlantic
"The real question to ask about the American drone attack that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was not whether it was justified,
but whether it was wise" -- The New York Times
"I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago and why not a month from now?" --
Elizabeth Warren
They're going to try to define the debate for you. Leaving aside the moral questions, is this good strategy? And then you
find yourself arguing on those terms: No, it was bad strategy, it will put "our personnel" in harms way, without noticing that you
are implicitly accepting the sociopathic logic that says "America's interests" are the only ones in the world that matters. This
is how debates about Vietnam went: They were rarely about whether our actions were good for Vietnamese people, but about whether
they were good or bad for us , whether we were squandering U.S. resources and troops in a "fruitless" "mistake." The people
of this country still do not understand the kind of carnage we inflicted on Vietnam because our debates tend to be about whether
things we do are "strategically prudent" rather than whether they are just. The Atlantic calls the strike a "blunder," shifting
the discussion to be about the wisdom of the killing rather than whether it is a choice our country is even permitted to make. "Blunder"
essentially assumes that we are allowed to do these things and the only question is whether it's good for us.
There will be plenty of attempts to distract you with irrelevant issues. We will spent more time talking about whether Trump followed
the right process for war, whether he handled the rollout correctly, and less about whether the underlying action itself is
correct. People like Ben Shapiro will say things
like :
"Barack Obama routinely droned terrorists abroad -- including American citizens -- who presented far less of a threat to
Americans and American interests than Soleimani. So spare me the hysterics about 'assassination."
In order for this to have any bearing on anything, you have to be someone who defends what Obama did. If you are, on the other
hand, someone who belives that Obama, too, assassinated people without due process (which he did), then Shapiro has proved exactly
nothing about whether Trump's actions were legitimate. (Note, too, the presumption that threatening "America's interests" can get
you killed, a standard we would not want any other country using but are happy to use ourselves.)
Emphasis matters
Consider three statements:
"The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no
question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans
and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we
are prepared for the consequences."
"Suleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless
move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority
must be to avoid another costly war."
"When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the country and the
region. Today, 17 years later, that fear has unfortunately turned out to be true. The United States has lost approximately 4,500
brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we've spent trillions on this war. Trump's dangerous escalation brings
us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised
to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."
These are statements made by Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, respectively. Note that each of them is
consistent with believing Trump's decision was the wrong one, but their emphasis is different. Buttigieg says Suleimani was a
"threat" but that there are "questions," Warren says Suleimani was a "murderer" but that this was "reckless," and Sanders says this
was a "dangerous escalation." It could be that none of these three would have done the same thing themselves, but the emphasis is
vastly different. Buttigieg and Warren lead with condemnation of the dead man, in ways that imply that there was nothing that
unjust about what happened. Sanders does not dwell on Suleimani but instead talks about the dangers of new wars.
We have to be clear and emphatic in our messaging, because so much effort is made to make what should be clear issues appear murky.
If, for example, you gave a speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq War, but the first half was simply a discussion of what a bad and threatening
person Saddam Hussein was, people might actually get the opposite of the impression you want them to get. Buttigieg and Warren,
while they appear to question the president, have the effect of making his action seem reasonable. After all, they admit that he
got rid of a threatening murderer! Sanders admits nothing of the kind: The only thing he says is that Trump has made the world worse.
He puts the emphasis where it matters.
I do not fully like Sanders' statement, because it still talks a bit more about what war means for our people ,
but it does mention destabilization and the total number of lives that can be lost. It is a far more morally clear and powerful antiwar
statement. Buttigieg's is exactly what you'd expect of a Consultant President and it should give us absolutely no confidence that
he would be a powerful voice against a war, should one happen. Warren confirms that she is not an effective advocate for peace. In
a time when there will be pressure for a violent conflict, we need to make sure that our statements are not watery and do not make
needless concessions to the hawks' propaganda.
Imagine how everything would sound if the other side said it.
If you're going to understand the world clearly, you have to kill your nationalistic emotions. An excellent way to do this is
to try to imagine if all the facts were reversed. If Iraq had invaded the United States, and U.S. militias violently resisted, would
it constitute "aggression" for those militias to kill Iraqi soldiers? If Britain funded those U.S. militias, and Iraq killed the
head of the British military with a drone strike, would this constitute "stopping a terrorist"? Of course, in that situation, the
Iraqi government would certainly spin it that way, because governments call everyone who opposes them terrorists. But rationality
requires us not just to examine whether violence has been committed (e.g., whether Suleimani ordered attacks) but what the
full historical context of that violence is, and who truly deserves the "terrorist" label.
Is there anything Suleimani did that hasn't also been done by the CIA? Remember that we actually engineered the overthrow of the
Iranian government, within living people's lifetimes . Would an Iranian have been justified in assassinating the head of the
CIA? I doubt there are many Americans who think they would. I think most Americans would consider this terrorism. But this is because
terrorism is a word that, by definition, cannot apply to things we do, and only applies to the things others do. When you start to
actually reverse the situations in your mind, and see how things look from the other side, you start to fully grasp just how crude
and irrational so much propaganda is.
"It was not an assassination." -- Noah Rothman, conservative commentator
"That's an outrageous thing to say. Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general."
-- Michael Bloomberg, on Bernie Sanders' claim that this was an "assassination"
Our access to much of the world is through language alone. We only see our tiny sliver of the world with our own eyes, much of
the rest of it has to be described in words or shown to us through images. That means it's very easy to manipulate our perceptions.
If you control the flow of information, you can completely alter someone's understanding of the things that they can't see firsthand.
Euphemistic language is always used to cover atrocities. Even the Nazis did not say they were "mass murdering innocent civilians."
They said they were defending themselves from subversive elements, guaranteeing sufficient living space for their people, purifying
their culture, etc. When the United States commits murder, it does not say it is committing murder. It says it is engaging in a stabilization
program and restoring democratic rule. We saw during the recent
Bolivian coup how easy it is
to portray the seizure of power as "democracy" and democracy as tyranny. Euphemistic language has been one of the key tools of murderous
regimes. In fact, many of them probably believe their own language; their specialized vocabulary allows them to inhabit a world of
their own invention where they are good people punishing evil.
Assassination sounds bad. It sounds like something illegitimate, something that would call into question the goodness of the United
States, even if the person being assassinated can be argued to have "deserved it." Thus Rothman and Bloomberg will not even admit
that what the U.S. did here was an assassination, even though we literally targeted a high official from a sovereign country and
dropped a bomb on him. Instead, this is " neutralization
." (Read this fascinatingly feeble attempt
by the Associated Press to explain why it isn't calling an obvious assassination an assassination, just as the media declined to
call torture torture when Bush did it.)
Those of us who want to resist marches to war need to insist on calling things exactly what they are and refuse to allow the country
to slide into the use of language that conceals the reality of our actions.
Remember what people were saying five minutes ago
Five minutes ago, hardly anybody was talking about Suleimani. Now they all speak as if he was Public Enemy #1. Remember how much
you hated that guy? Remember how much damage he did? No, I do not remember, because people like Ben Shapiro only just discovered
their hatred for Suleimani once they had to justify his murder.
During the buildup to a war there is a constant effort to make you forget what things were like a few minutes ago. Before World
War I, Americans lived relatively harmoniously with Germans in their midst. The same thing with Japanese people before World War
II. Then, immediately, they began to hate and fear people who had recently been their neighbors.
Let us say Iran responds to this extrajudicial murder with a colossal act of violent reprisal, after the killing
unifies the country around a demand for vengeance. They kill a high-ranking American official, or wage an attack that kills our
civilians. Perhaps it will attack some of the soldiers that are now being moved into the Middle East. The Trump administration will
then want you to forget that it promised this assassination was to "
stop a war ." It will then
want you to focus solely on Iran's most recent act, to see that as the initial aggression. If the attack is particularly bad,
with family members of victims crying on TV and begging for vengeance, you will be told to look into the face of Iranian evil, and
those of us who are anti-war will be branded as not caring about the victims. Nobody wants you to remember the history of U.S./Iran
relations, the civilians we killed of theirs or the time we destabilized their whole country and got rid of its democracy. They want
you to have a two-second memory, to become a blind and unthinking patriot whose sole thought is the avenging of American blood. Resisting
propaganda requires having a memory, looking back on how things were before and not accepting war as the "new normal."
Listen to the Chomsky on your shoulder.
"It is perfectly insane to suggest the U.S. was the aggressor here." -- Ben Shapiro
They are going to try to convince you that you are insane for asking questions, or for not accepting what the government tells
you. They will put you in topsy-turvy land, where thinking that assassinating foreign officials is "aggression" is not just wrong,
but sheer madness. You will have to try your best to remember what things are, because it is not easy, when everyone says
the emperor has clothes, or that Line A is longer than Line B, or that shocking people to death is fine, to have confidence in your
independent judgment.
This is why I keep a little imaginary Noam
Chomsky sitting on my shoulder at all times. Chomsky helps keep me sane, by cutting through lies and euphemisms and showing things
as they really are. I recommend reading his books, especially during times of war. He never swallowed Johnson's nonsense about Vietnam
or Bush's nonsense about Iraq. And of course they called him insane, anti-American, terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic, blah blah blah.
What I really mean here though is: Listen to the dissidents. They will not appear on television. They will be smeared and treated
as lunatics. But you need them if you are going to be able to resist the absolute barrage of misinformation, or to hear yourself
think over the pounding war drums. Times of War Fever can be wearying, because there is just so much aggression against dissent that
your resistance wears down. This is why a community is so necessary. You may watch people who previously seemed reasonable develop
a pathological bloodlust (mild-mannered moderate types like Thomas Friedman and Brian Williams going suck on our missiles
). Find the people who see clearly and stick close to them.
Daniel
Larison Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer
report on the Trump administration's decision to refuse a visa to Iran's foreign minister.
Barring Zarif from the U.S. is a blatant violation of U.S. obligations as the host of U.N.
headquarters:
"Any foreign minister is entitled to address the Security Council at any time and the
United States is obligated to provide access to the U.N. headquarters district," said Larry
Johnson, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general. Under the terms of the U.S. agreement
with the United Nations, "they are absolutely obligated to let him in."
Johnson, who currently serves as an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School,
noted that the U.S. Congress, however, passed legislation in August 1947, the so-called
Public Law 80-357, that granted the U.S. government the authority to bar foreign individuals
invited by the United Nations to attend meetings at its New York City headquarters if they
are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. But Johnson said the U.S. law would
require the individual be "expected to commit some act against the U.S. national security
interest while here in the United States."
Refusing to admit Zarif is another foolish mistake on the administration's part. Preventing
him from coming to the U.N. not only breaches our government's agreement with the U.N., but it
also closes off a possible channel of communication and demonstrates to the world that the U.S.
has no interest in a diplomatic resolution of the current crisis. Far from conveying the
"toughness" that Pompeo imagines he is showing, keeping Zarif out reeks of weakness and
insecurity. Zarif is a capable diplomat, but is the Trump administration really so afraid of
what he would say while he is here that they would ignore U.S. obligations to block him?
By barring Zarif, the Trump administration has given him and his government another
opportunity to score an easy propaganda win. They have squandered an opportunity to reduce
tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. needs to find an off-ramp to avoid further
conflict following the president's assassination order, but thanks to Pompeo's decision that
off-ramp won't be found in New York.
More people at Mara Lago knew that General Suliemeni was going to be hit than congressmen and congresswomen? That tells me
trump was bragging about how much power he has. He's so insecure and feeble that he has no business holding the most power office
in the land!
The main beneficiaries of Solimanies death are his arch enemies, Isis. Trump turned on both his field allies against Isis,
the Kurds and Solimani's militia. Who are America's allies in the field, now?
Let me tally this up for the wonderful viewers, an American backed coupe of a democratically elected prime minister who wanted
to nationalize the oil fields of Iran which at time was owned by Britain. The shooting down of a plane with 290 people in it by
an American Naval vessel. The backing of Saddam with chemical weapons and millions of dollars, to go to war with Iran leaving
half a million dead. The installation of a dictator whose secret police force imprisoned, tortured and killed political dissidence.
Learn your history.
All jokes aside but everyone this isnt a joke anymore becuase of our wreckless president making dumb distractions ive ever
heard of trump is a sociopath he makes the rich richer, the poor poorer. Just remember this guy and his family are banned from
having fun raisers in the state of new york becuase trump held a big fundraiser to help fight kids cancer he stole money from
kids to search to find a cure for cancer. He nearly shut down the gouverment becuase Congress refused to give him the money for
him to build the wall but not most of all 5 general from the us resigned becuase they didnt agree with his intensions. He doesnt
care about anyone but himself and anyone with common sense can sse that and im done with the US government and this isnt the American
that i grew up loving. All the hatred for eachother is disgusting and disturbing
The Iranian fiasco started in 1953 when America overthrew Iran's democratically elected government, so we could get their oil.
The autocrat we installed had a nasty habit of torturing and murdering any who opposed him, but he did sell us oil. In 1979 the
Iranians, united by their clergy, threw him out. We keep stirring the hornets nest we created and are surprised when we get stung?
Now you too can have a front row seat at this foreign policy debacle! War? We don't need no stinking war. Trump is desperate to
distract the American people from seeing how incompetent and stupid he really is.
So Trump instead of draining the swamp brought swamp creatures like Pompeo into his Administration; now he can pay the price.
Notable quotes:
"... The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo ..."
"... "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook." ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said. ..."
"... One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida. ..."
"... Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations. ..."
"... On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact. ..."
"... "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat. ..."
"... Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible." ..."
"... At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. ..."
"... After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target. ..."
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the
killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials
said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to
Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression
created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo, but it also carries
multiple serious risks: another protracted regional war in the Middle East; retaliatory assassinations of U.S. personnel stationed
around the world; an
interruption in the battle against the Islamic State; the
closure of diplomatic pathways to containing
Iran's nuclear program; and a major backlash in Iraq, whose parliament
voted on Sunday to expel all U.S. troops from the country.
For Pompeo, whose political ambitions are a source of
constant speculation , the death of U.S. diplomats would be particularly damaging given his unyielding criticisms of former secretary
of state Hillary Clinton following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and other American personnel in Benghazi in 2012.
But none of those considerations stopped Pompeo from pushing for the targeted strike, U.S. officials said, underscoring a fixation
on Iran that spans 10 years of government service from Congress to the CIA to the State Department.
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President
Trump undertook."
Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon
officials were willing to countenance such an operation.
For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration's campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased
tensions with Tehran, requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted
to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.
How the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded On
Jan. 1, the siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad appeared to come to an end after supporters of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah
militia retreated. (Liz Sly, Joyce Lee, Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that
mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and
injuring service members.
On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials
presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran.
One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same
class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed
the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
"Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis," said a senior administration official
who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. "Mattis was opposed to all of this. It's not a hit on Mattis, it's just his
predisposition. Milley and Esper are different. Now you've got a cohesive national security team and you've got a secretary of state
and defense secretary who've known each other their whole adult lives."
Mattis declined to comment.
In the days since the strike, Pompeo has become the voice of the administration on the matter, speaking to allies and making the
public case for the operation. Trump chose Pompeo to appear on all of the Sunday news shows because he "sticks to the line" and "never
gives an inch," an administration official said.
But critics inside and outside the administration have questioned Pompeo's justification for the strike based on his claims that
"dozens if not hundreds" of American lives were at risk.
Lawmakers left classified briefings with U.S. intelligence officials on Friday saying they heard nothing to suggest that the threat
posed by the proxy forces guided by Soleimani had changed substantially in recent months.
When repeatedly pressed on Sunday about the imminent nature of the threats, whether it was days or weeks away, or whether they
had been foiled by the U.S. airstrike, Pompeo dismissed the questions.
"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks -- this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN.
Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he
make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations.
Critics have also questioned how an imminent attack would be foiled by killing Soleimani, who would not have carried out the strike
himself.
"If the attack was going to take place when Soleimani was alive, it is difficult to comprehend why it wouldn't take place now
that he is dead," said Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group and a former Obama administration official.
Following the strike, Pompeo has held back-to-back phone calls with his counterparts around the globe but has received a chilly
reception from European allies, many of whom fear that the attack puts their embassies in Iran and Iraq in jeopardy and has now eliminated
the chance to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear program.
"We have woken up to a more dangerous world," said France's Europe minister, Amelie de Montchalin.
Two European diplomats familiar with the calls said Pompeo expected European leaders to champion the U.S. strike publicly even
though they were never consulted on the decision.
"The U.S. has not helped the Iran situation, and now they want everyone to cheerlead this," one diplomat said.
"Our position over the past few years has been about defending the JCPOA," said the diplomat, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear
deal.
On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research
and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original
signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact.
"No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat.
Pompeo has slapped back at U.S. allies, saying "the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did --
what the Americans did -- saved lives in Europe as well," he told Fox News.
Israel has stood out in emphatically cheering the Soleimani operation, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising
Trump for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."
"Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," he said.
Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence
service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and
the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible."
Though Democrats have greeted the strike with skepticism, Republican leaders, who have long viewed Pompeo as a reassuring voice
in the administration, uniformly praised the decision as the eradication of a terrorist who directed the killing of U.S. soldiers
in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
"Soleimani made it his life's work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for death to America and death to Israel and turn them
into action," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.
A critical moment for Pompeo is nearing as he faces growing questions about a potential Senate run, though some GOP insiders say
that decision seems to have stalled. Pompeo has kept in touch with Ward Baker, a political consultant who would probably lead the
operation, and others in McConnell's orbit, about a bid. But Pompeo hasn't committed one way or the other, people familiar with the
conversations said.
Some people close to the secretary say he has mixed feelings about becoming a relatively junior senator from Kansas after leading
the State Department and CIA, but there is little doubt in Pompeo's home state that he could win.
At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular
among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.
After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering
efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target.
At the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above
other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world. "If it's about Iran, he will read it," said one diplomat, referring to the massive flow of paper that crosses Pompeo's desk. "If
it's not, good luck."
Tucker Carlson is livid with anger and frustration at Trump's actions .
Death to America is a rallying point for Iran to emphasize the same aspect of American
status .
They talk in future . Carlson is reminding that we are already there .
If people woke up with anger at Iran., they would find that the dead horse isn't able to
do much but only can attract a lot of attention from far .
The reason Taliban didn't inform Mulla Omar's death was to let the rank and file continues
to remain engaged without getting into internal feuding fight .
A trues state of US won't be televised until the horse starts rotting but then that would be
quite late .
I don't recall any dissent until this assassination . Now 70 cities are witnessing
protests and a few in Media are not happy at all .
There is a big unknown if and when Iran would strike back and at who. Persian is not like
khasaogi murderer or Harri kidnapper .
Most probably Pompeo was cheating and deceived Trump to get the approval of this asssasination. now with his head on the block he
is trying to avoid the responsibility.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough. ..."
"... Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides answers on "how this decision was reached ... then this move is questionable , to say the least." ..."
"... "I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives are at stake right now." ..."
"... the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations, which have led to U.S. deaths . ..."
Democrats on Sunday demanded answers about the
killing of top Iranian
Gen.
Qassem Soleimani as tensions mounted with Iran and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the United States had faced an
imminent threat.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC's "This Week" that he worried that President Donald Trump's decision
"will get us into what he calls
another
endless war in the Middle East ." He called for Congress to "assert" its authority and prevent Trump from "either bumbling or
impulsively getting us into a major war."
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such
a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough.
"I think we learned the hard way ... in the Iraq War that administrations sometimes
manipulate
and cherry-pick intelligence to further their political goals," he said.
"That's what got us into the Iraq War. There was no WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. "I'm saying that they have
an obligation to present the evidence."
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides
answers on "how this decision was reached ... then
this move is questionable
, to say the least."
"I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives
are at stake right now."
The fraught relationship with Iran has significantly deteriorated in the days since Soleimani's death, which came days after rioters
sought to storm the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and a U.S. contractor was killed in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base
in Kirkuk.
The Defense Department said Soleimani, the high-profile commander of Iran's secretive Quds Force, who was accused of controlling
Iranian-linked proxy militias across the Middle East, orchestrated the attacks on bases in Iraq of the U.S.-led coalition fighting
the Islamic State militant group, including the strike that killed the U.S. contractor. In addition, the Defense Department said
Soleimani approved attacks on the embassy compound in Baghdad.
"
We
took action last night to stop a war ," Trump said Friday in a televised address, referring to the airstrike that killed Soleimani.
"We did not take action to start a war."
But the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years
of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations,
which have led to U.S. deaths .
Iran and its allies vowed to retaliate for the general's death, and Trump has since escalated his language in response.
Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics
Below are some idea from Below are some idea from
OffGuardian that
clrify TT post...
The Saker took a look yesterday at The Soleimani murder – what
could happen next . He thinks, as he has said before, that Trump is regarded as a disposable
asset by his Deep State handlers and is being used as a front man for risky policy actions that
he can be scapegoated for if/when they go wrong.
war with Iran has been the auto-erotic fixation for the hardcore war nuts in Washington for
years, and imminent confrontation has been predicted regularly since at least 2005
Trump administration from the very beginning has been ramping up the tensions (Adelson money
at work): Trump teared up the nuclear deal, re-imposed sanctions, making provocations, making
threats. But this has all been within the familiar framework that always just stops short of
actual conflict. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever
risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism'
as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly
look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they
have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag
'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost
certainly look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond
anything they have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much
false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we
can almost certainly look forward to some of that.
The major question really though is – will this backtracking and odd claims of wanting
de-escalation actually do anything to de-escalate? Will it persuade Iran not to seek retaliation,
supposing this is now what Pompeo et al want?
It's become a commonplace to describe Trump foreign policy as 'insane', and it's an apposite
description. But the murder of Soleimani takes the evident insanity to new and self-defeating
levels.
Notable quotes:
"... Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we deserve to be labeled as international pariahs. ..."
"... Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US dreams of regional hegemony. ..."
"... According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of anything, but what are the chances? ..."
"... This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the "mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. ..."
"... After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb, invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a lot! ..."
"... IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors. ..."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States had "clear, unambiguous" intelligence that a top
Iranian general was planning a significant campaign of violence against the United States when
it decided to strike him, the top U.S. general said on Friday, warning Soleimani's plots "might
still happen."
Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a small group
of reporters "we fully comprehend the strategic consequences" associated with the strike
against Qassem Soleimani, Tehran's most prominent military commander.
But he said the risk of inaction exceeded the risk that killing him might dramatically
escalate tensions with Tehran. "Is there risk? Damn right, there's risk. But we're working to
mitigate it," Milley said from his Pentagon office. (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
This is pretty much in line with Trump's pronouncement that our assassination of Soleimani
along with Iraqi General Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was carried out to prevent a war not start one.
Whatever information was presented to Trump painted a picture of imminent danger in his mind.
What did the Pentagon see that was so imminent?
Well first let's look at the mindset of the Pentagon concerning our presence in Iraq and
Syria. These two recent quotes from Brett McGurk sums up that mindset.
"If we leave Iraq, that will just increase further the running room for Iran and Shia
militia groups and also the vacuum that will see groups like ISIS fill and we'll be right
back to where we were. So that would be a disaster."
"It's always been Soleimani's strategic game... to get us out of the Middle East. He wants
to see us leave Syria, he wants to see us leave Iraq... I think if we leave Iraq after this,
that would just be a real disastrous outcome..."
McGurk played a visible role in US policy in Iraq and Syria under Bush, Obama and Trump. Now
he's an NBC talking head and a lecturer at Stanford. He could be the poster boy for what many
see as a neocon deep state. He's definitely not alone in thinking this way.
So back to the question of what was the imminent threat. Reuters offers an elaborate story
of a secret meeting of PMU commanders with Soleimani on a rooftop terrace on the Tigris with a
grand view of the US Embassy on the far side of the river.
-- -- -- -- --
"In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi'ite
militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy
complex in Baghdad, and instructed them to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the
country"
"Two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters
that Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful
militia leaders to step up attacks on US targets using sophisticated new weapons provided by
Iran."
"Soleimani's plans to attack US forces aimed to provoke a military response that would
redirect Iraqis' anger towards Iran to the US, according to the sources briefed on the
gathering, Iraqi Shi'ite politicians and government officials close to Iraq PM Adel Abdul
Mahdi."
"At the Baghdad villa, Soleimani told the assembled commanders to form a new militia
group of low-profile paramilitaries - unknown to the United States - who could carry out rocket
attacks on Americans housed at Iraqi military bases." (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran? They were 1960s Chinese
designed 107mm multiple rocket launcher technology. These simple but effective rocket launchers
were mass produced by the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey and Sudan in addition to China. They've
been used in every conflict since then. The one captured outside of the K1 military base seems
to be locally fabricated, but used Iranian manufactured rockets.
Since when does the PMU have to form another low profile militia unit? The PMU is already
composed of so many militia units it's difficult to keep track of them. There's also nothing
low profile about the Kata'ib Hizbollah, the rumored perpetrators of the K1 rocket attack.
They're as high profile as they come.
Perhaps there's something to this Reuters story, but to me it sounds like another shithouse
rumor. It would make a great scene in a James Bond movie, but it still sounds like a rumor.
There's another story put out by The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Although it also
sounds like a scene form a James Bond movie, I think it sounds more convincing than the Reuters
story.
-- -- -- -- --
Delegation of Arab tribes met with "Soleimani" at the invitation of "Tehran" to carry out
attacks against U.S. Forces east Euphrates
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights learned that a delegation of the Arab tribes met
on the 26th of December 2019, with the goal of directing and uniting forces against U.S.
Forces, and according to the Syrian Observatory's sources, that meeting took place with the
commander of the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassim Soleimani, who was
assassinated this morning in a U.S. raid on his convoy in Iraq. the sources reported that: "the
invitation came at the official invitation of Tehran, where Iran invited Faisal al-al-Aazil,
one of the elders of al-Ma'amra clan, in addition to the representative of al-Bo Asi clan the
commander of NDF headquarters in Qamishli Khatib al-Tieb, and the Sheikh of al-Sharayin, Nawaf
al-Bashar, the Sheikh of Harb clan, Mahmoud Mansour al-Akoub, " adding that: "the meeting
discussed carrying out attacks against the American forces and the Syria Democratic
Forces."
Earlier, the head of the Syrian National Security Bureau, Ali Mamlouk, met with the
security committee and about 20 Arab tribal elders and Sheikhs in al-Hasakah, at Qamishli
Airport Hall on the 5th of December 2019, where he demanded the Arab tribes to withdraw their
sons from the ranks of the Syria Democratic Forces. (SOHR)
-- -- -- -- --
I certainly don't automatically give credence to anything Rami sends out of his house in
Coventry. I give this story more credibility only because that is exactly what I would do if
Syria east of the the Euphrates was my UWOA (unconventional warfare operational area). This is
exactly how I would go about ridding the area of the "Great Satan" invaders and making Syria
whole again. The story also includes a lot of named individuals. This can be checked. This
morning Colonel Lang told me some tribes in that region have a Shia history. Perhaps he can
elaborate on that. I've read in several places that Qassim Soleimani knew the tribes in Syria
and Iraq like the back of his hand. This SOHR story makes sense. If Soleimani was working with
the tribes of eastern Syria like he worked with the tribes and militias of Iraq to create the
al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbi, it no doubt scared the bejeezus out of the Pentagon and
endangered their designs for Iraq and Syria.
So, Qassim Soleimani, the Iranian soldier, the competent and patient Iranian soldier, was a
threat to the Pentagon's designs a serious threat. But he was a long term threat, not an
imminent threat. And he was just one soldier.The threat is systemic and remains. The question
of why, in the minds of Trump and his generals, Soleimani had to die this week is something I
will leave for my next post.
A side note on Milley: Whenever I see a photo of him, I am reminded of my old Brigade
Commander in the 25th Infantry Division, Colonel Nathan Vail. They both have the countenance of
a snapping turtle. One of the rehab transfers in my rifle platoon once referred to him as "that
J. Edgar Hoover looking mutha fuka." I had to bite my tongue to keep from breaking out in
laughter. It would have been unseemly for a second lieutenant to openly enjoy such disrespect
by a PV2 and a troublemaking PV2 at that. God bless PV2 Webster, where ever you are.
Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's
contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the
Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The
unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we
are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we
deserve to be labeled as international pariahs.
Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US
dreams of regional hegemony. I was glad we went back into Iraq to take on the threat of IS and
cheered our initial move into Syria to do the same. That was the Sunni-Shia war you worry
about. More accurately, it was a Salafist jihadist-all others war. Unfortunately, we overstayed
the need and our welcome. It's a character flaw that we cannot loosen our grasp on empire no
matter how much it costs us.
Thanks for your post. What it says I buy. We are in the Middle East and have been for a
while to impose regional hegemony. What that has bought us is nebulous at best. Clearly we have
spent trillions and destabilized the region. Millions have been displaced and hundreds of
thousands have been killed and maimed, including thousands of our soldiers. Are we better off
from our invasion of Iraq, toppling Ghaddafi, and attempting to topple Assad using jihadists?
Guys like McGurk, Bolton, Pompeo will say yes. Others like me will say no.
The oil is a canard. We produce more oil than we ever have and it is a fungible commodity.
Will it impact Israel if we pull out our forces? Sure. But it may have a salutary effect that
it may force them to sue for peace. Will the Al Sauds continue to fund jihadi mayhem? Likely
yes, but they'll have to come to some accommodation with the Iranian Shia and recognize their
regional strength.
Our choice is straightforward. Continue down the path of more conflict sinking ever more
trillions that we don't have expecting a different outcome or cut our losses and get out and
let the natural forces of the region assert themselves. I know which path I'll take.
With all due respect, I think you are wrong. I think the protesters swarming the embassy was
exactly the same kind of tactic that US backed protesters used in Ukraine (and are currently
using in Hong Kong) to great effect. The Persians are unique in that they are capable of
studying our methodologies and tactics and appropriating them.
When the US backed protesters took over Maidan square and started taking over various
government building in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovych had two choices - either start shooting
protesters or watch while his authority collapsed. It was and is a difficult choice.
In my
humble opinion, there are few things the stewards of US hegemony fear more than the IRGC
becoming the worlds number one disciple of Gene Sharp.
TTG - "And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran?"
According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the
same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last
year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of
anything, but what are the chances?
If the U.S. only had a Dilyana Gaytandzhieva to bird-dog out the rat line. Wait... the MSM
would have fired her by now for weaponizing journalism against the neocons [sigh].
If a goal is to get the heck out of the Middle East since it is an intractable cess pit and
stat protecting our own borders and internal security, will we be better off with Soleimani out
of the picture or left in place.
Knowing of course, more just like him will sprout quickly, like dragon's teeth, in the sands
of the desert.ME is a tar baby. Fracking our own tar sands is the preferable alternative.
Real war war would be a direct attack on Israel. Then they get our full frontal assault. But
this pissy stuff around the edges is an exercise in futility. 2020 was Trump's to
lose.Incapacity to handle asymmetirc warfare is ours to lose.
There is no necessary link between the Iranian support for the Assad regime, to include its
operations in tribal areas of Syria. The Iranian-backed militias and Iranian government
officials have been operating in that area for a long time, supporting the efforts of
Security/Intel Ali Mamlouk. That Suleimani knew the tribes so well is a mark of his
professional competence. Everyone is courting the Syrian tribes, some sides more adeptly than
others. It is also worth noting that in putting together manpower for their various locally
formed Syrian militias, the Iranians took on unemployed Sunnis.
That said, there are small Ismaili communities in Syria and there are apparently a couple of
villages in Deir ez Zor that did convert to Shiism, but no mass religious change. The Iranians
are sensitive to the fact that they could cause a backlash if they tried hard to promote "an
alien culture."
Well, The Donald has turned to Twitter menacing iran with wiping out all of its World Heritage
Sites....which is declared intention to commit a war crime...
For what it seems Iran must sawllow the assasination of its beloved and highjly regarded
general...or else...
Do you really think there is any explanation for this, whatever Soleimani´s history (
he was doing his duty in his country and neighboring zone...you are...well...everywhere...) or
that we can follow this way with you escalating your threats and crimes ever and that everybody
must leave it at that without response or you menace coming with more ?
That somebody or some news agency has any explanation for this is precisely the sign of our
times and our disgrace. That there is a bunch of greedy people who is willing to do whatever is
needed to prevail and keep being obscenely rich...
BTW, would be interesting to know who are the main holders of shares at Reuters...
The same monopolizing almost each and every MSM and news agency at every palce in the world,
big bank, big pharma, big business, big capital ( insurances companies nad hedge funds ) big
real state, and US think tanks...
In Elora´s opinion, Bret MacGurk is making revanche from Soleimani for the predictable
fact that a humble and pious man bred in the region, who worked as bricklayer to help pay his
father´s debt during his youth, and moreover has an innate irresistible charisma, managed
to connect better with the savage tribes of the ME than such exceptionalist posh theoric bred
at such an exceptionalist as well as far away country like the US.
But...what did you expect, that MacGurk would become Lawrence of Arabia versus Soleimani in
his simpleness?
May be because of that that he deserved being dismembered by a misile...
As Pence blamed shamefully and stonefacelly Soleimani for 9/11, MacGurk blames him too for
having fallen from the heights he was...
It seems that Pence was in the team of four who assesed Trump on this hit...along with
Pompeo...
A good response would be that someone would leak the real truth on 9/11 so as to debunk
Pence´s mega-lie...
Two years ago, the public protest theme for Basel's winter carnival Fashnach was the imminent
threat nuclear war as NK and US were sabre rattling, and NK was lobbing missles across Japan
with sights on West Coast US cities.
Then almost the following week, NK and US planned to meet F2F in Singapore. And we could all
breathe again. In the very early spring of 2018.
This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the
"mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence
claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't
so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in
cahoots with Osama bin Laden.
I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour.
After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist
loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb,
invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our
soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest
rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a
lot!
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how Trump's re-election will go when we are engaged in a
full scale military conflagration in the Middle East? It sure will give Tulsi & Bernie an
excellent environment to promote their anti-neocon message. You can see it in Trump's
ambivalent tweets. On the one hand, I ordered the assassination of Soleimani to prevent a war
(like we needed to burn the village to save it), while on the other hand, we have 52 sites
locked & loaded if you retaliate. Hmmm!! IMO, he has seriously jeapordized his re-election
by falling into the neocon Deep State trap. They never liked him. The coup by law enforcement
& CIA & DNI failed. The impeachment is on its last legs. Voila! Incite him into another
Middle Eastern quagmire against what he campaigned on and won an election.
I would think that Khamanei has no choice but to retaliate. How is anyone's guess? I doubt
he'll order the sinking of a naval vessel patrolling the Gulf or fire missiles into the US base
in Qatar. But assassination....especially in some far off location in Europe or South America?
A targeted bombing here or there? A cyber attack at a critical point. I mean not indiscriminate
acts like the jihadists but highly calculated targets. All seem extremely feasible in our
highly vulnerable and relatively open societies. And they have both the experience and skills
to accomplish them.
If ever you have the inclination, a speculative post on how the escalation ladder could
potentially be climbed would be a fascinating read.
"I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour."
BP,
Yes, indeed. It is a testament to our susceptibility that there is such limited scepticism
by so many people on the pronouncements of our government. Especially considering the decades
long continuous streams of lies and propaganda. The extent and brazenness of the lies have just
gotten worse through my lifetime.
I feel for my grand-children and great-grand children as they now live in society that has
no value for honor. It's all expedience in the search for immediate personal gain.
I am and have been in the minority for decades now. I've always opposed our military
adventurism overseas from Korea to today. I never bought into the domino theory even at the
heights of the Cold War. And I don't buy into the current global hegemony destiny to bring
light to the savages. I've also opposed the build up of the national security surveillance
state as the antithesis of our founding. I am also opposed to the increasing concentration of
market power across every major market segment. It will be the destruction of our
entrepreneurial economy. The partisan duopoly is well past it's sell date. But right now the
majority are still caught up in rancorous battles on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
A question to the committee: what is the source for the claim that Soleimani bears direct
responsibility for the death of over 600 US military personnel?
If that is the case (and it appears to be) then the US govt's claim is nonsense, as it
clearly says " 'During Operation Iraqi Freedom, DoD assessed that at least 603 U.S. personnel
deaths in Iraq were the result of Iran-backed militants,' Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a Pentagon
spokesman, said in an email."
So those figures represent casualties suffered during the US-led military invasion of Iraq
i.e. casualties suffered during a shooting-war.
If Soleimani is a legitimate target for assassination because of the success of his forces
on the battlefield then wouldn't that make Tommy Franks an equally-legitimate target?
Pulitzer Prize winning author of Caliphate, Romanian-American, Rukmini Callimachi, on the
intelligence on Soleimani "imminent threat" being razor-thin.
You just beat me to her thread, Jack. For the Twitter shy, this is the first of a series of 17
tweets as a teaser:
1. I've had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had
intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I've learned. According to
them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is
"razor thin".
IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing
out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the
Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we
think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly
permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors.
Not only Mossad but probably many others would like to see a suicide bomber blow himself
up somewhere in the US killing alot of people. That makes it difficult to figure out who
did it and maybe impossible to figure it out. It would be a mess.
But they could always find an un-scorched Iranian passport in mint condition among the
debris of the explosion.
@ChuckOrloski
At the time I thought that it might be justified, if Al Qaida actually did 9/11. Now I know
that Al Qaida was and is a CIA operation and have my doubts regarding its involvement in
9/11.
Even if it was, that was on direct orders of its American handlers.
What's more, now I
know for sure that the US government spreads shameless lies, so you can't believe anything it
says. In fact, you can safely assume that everything it says is a lie and be right 99.9% of
the time.
So, I did not see it as a war crime back then, but I do now.
"... work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason ..."
"... Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized . ..."
"... The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! ..."
First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections
once the official sources make their official statements).
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA .
The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw
their troops from Iraq.
Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes
before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “ work to end the presence of any foreign troops
on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason “
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of
its sovereignty .
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go
far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized
.
The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see
here ). The are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming
next.
For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque , Iran. This indicates
that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen . The text in the flag say s “ Oh Hussein we
ask for your help ” (u nofficial translation 1) or “ Rise up and avenge al-Husayn ” (unofficial translation 2)
The US has announced the deployment of 3’000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait .
Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message , probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and
without hesitation! “. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to
yield victory…
Analysis
Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel
from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake,
this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?
For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.
Second, the US now has two options:
Fight and sink deep into a catastrophic quagmire or Withdraw from Iraq and lose any possibility to keep forces in Syria
Both of these are very bad because whatever option Uncle Shmuel chooses, he will lost whatever tiny level of credibility he has
left, even amongst his putative "allies" (like the KSA which will now be left nose to nose with a much more powerful Iran than ever
before).
The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely
outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.
Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces
being "THE BEST").
Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.
This is so important that I need to repeat it again:
The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.
I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and
the Yemeni Houthis).
Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is
what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR
the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.
Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional
as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order.
So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in
the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).
No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will
begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:
Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations
and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges,
hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that
one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia:
a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)
Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and
that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv
and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced
by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").
Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).
In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.
Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.
Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise.
As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move,
we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance,
the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".
Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally
horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are
truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young
soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about
THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.
I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong.
I am now signing off but I will try to update you here as soon as any important info comes in.
The Saker
UPDATE1 : according to the Russian website Colonel
Cassad , Moqtada al-Sadr has officially made the following demands to the Iraqi government:
Immediately break the cooperation agreement with the United States. Close the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Close all U.S. military bases
in Iraq. Criminalize any cooperation with the United States. To ensure the protection of Iraqi embassies. Officially boycott American
products.
Cassad (aka Boris Rozhin) also posted this excellent caricature:
UPDATE3 : al-Manar reports that two rockets have landed near the US embassy in Baghdad.
UPDATE4 :
Zerohedge
is reporting that Iranian state TV broadcasted an appeal made during the funeral procession in which a speaker said that each
Iranian ought to send one dollar per person (total 80'000'000 dollars) as a bounty for the killing of Donald Trump. I am trying to
get a confirmation from Iran about this.
UPDATE5 : Russian sources claim that all Iranian rocket forces have been put on combat alert.
UPDATE6 : the Russian heavy rocket cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" has cross the Bosphorus and has entered the Mediterranean.
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA
Order Now The Essential Saker II: Civilizational
Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear
who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation
policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please
be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.
(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.
(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:
a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:
a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant
to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more
quickly.
and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in
Name of your link
(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs: You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated. The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will
look like before you send it.
(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.
If this is true, it makes America's murder of General Soleimani even more outrageous. This would be like the USA sending an
American regime official to some other country for a negotiation only to have him/her drone striked in the process!
America reveals its malign character as even more sick that even its opponents have thought possible.
Perhaps, Iran should request that Mike Pompeo come to Baghdad for a negotiation about General Soleimani 's murder and then
"bug splat" Pompeo's fat ass from a drone!
"For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void."
-I actually read somewhere that the Iraqi government is just a caretaker government and even thought it voted to remove foreign
forces, it is not actually legally binding.
I'm no lawyer. I don't see why that would matter. If a caretaker government is presented with a crisis, why would it not have
the authority to act?
That said, It could be the line the US government chooses to use to insist its presence is still legal. If course the MSM will
repeat and repeat and make it seem real.
Couldn't agree more. When I read that my jaw dropped and I'm sure my eyes went huge. I just couldn't believe they could be that
stupid, or that immoral, that sunk in utter utter depravity. They truly are those who have not one shred of decency, and thus
have no way of recognising or understanding what decency is. Pure psychopath – an inability to grasp the emotions, values, and
world view of those who are normal. This truly is beyond the pale, and this above everything else will ensure the revenge the
heartbroken people of Iran are seeking. May God bless them.
The US Armed Forces do not need to be 'THE BEST". All they need is mountains of second rate ordinance to re-bury Iraq bury Iran
under rubble. They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds and bomb the c**p out of any one who wants to 'steal
their oil', or any one who wants to 'steal the land promised by God to the Chosen People'. The U.S. has always previously been
limited in their avarice for destruction by their desire to be viewed as the 'good guy'. This limitation has now been stripped
away. There is now nothing to stop the AngloZionist entity except naked force in return.
"realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not
more (depending on the actual plan)."
Yes, but these are not part of a single force, many of these are more a target than a threat. Besides, they need to be concentrated
into a a few single forces to actually participate in an invasion.
The Saker
To understand troop size and relevance think along these lines. For every US front line soldier there will be 5 others in support
roles, logistics etc. So for every front line fighting Marine there will be 5 others who got him there and who support him in
his work. 10,000 front line fighting troops means 50,000 troops shipping out to the borders of Iran. I think perhaps you would
need 100,000 US front line troops for an invasion AND occupation (because we all know if they go in they aren't going to leave
quickly) We're talking about half a million US troops, this simply isn't going to happen for multiple reasons, not least they
need to amass at some form of base (probably Iraq – yeah right) maybe Kuwait? They'd just be a constant sitting target. Saker
is correct in that if this goes down it's going to be an air campaign (will the Iranians use the S300s they have?) and possibly
Navy supported. the Israelis will help out but in turn make themselves targets at home for rocket attacks. Again I can't see it
happening, it would take too long to arrange plus from the moment it kicks off every US base, individual is just a target to the
majority of anti US forces spread across the whole middle east. I expect back door diplomacy, probably to little effect, and a
ham fisted token blitz of cruise missiles and drone bombs at Iranian infrastructure, sadly this will not work for the Americans,
we will have a long running campaign on ME ground but also mass terrorist activity across the US and some of its allies. Its a
best guess scenario but if that plays out whatever happens to Iran this war will be another long running death by a 1000 cuts
for the US and will guarantee Trump does not get re-elected.
Whoever sold this to Trump (Bolton via Pompeo? Bibi?) has really lit the touch paper of ruin. Yes it stinks of Netanyahoo but
it also reaks of full strength neocon, Bolton style. Trump is dumb enough to fall for it and obviously did.
1. To read the Colonel Cassad website in English or any other language, just go to
https://translate.yandex.com/ and then paste in the Cassad URL, which
is given above but again, it's https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/
The really nice thing is that when you click on links, Yandex Translate automatically translates those links. Two problems, though.
1. For some unknown reason, Yandex always first translates Cassad as English-to-Russian, and then you have to click on a little
window near the top left, to again request Russian-to-English and then it translates everything fine. I do not experience this
problem when using Yandex on any other website. 2. Unlike what Benders-Lee intended when he invented the web browser, the "back
button" almost doesn't work on Yandex Translate. So always right-click to open links in a new tab.
2. The US could probably carry out a large number of air attacks, but the Iranian response would be to destroy all the Gulf
oil facilities AND everything worth bombing in Israel. This potential for offense is Iran's best defense, and, I think, the main
reason why there hasn't been a war. Iran's air defense missiles are probably more effective than the lying MSM will admit, and
might shoot down a large percentage of the humans and aluminum the US would throw at Iran, but it's a matter of attrition, and
Iran would suffer grave damage. We can't rule out that that might be the plan since the Empire is run by psychopaths. A US Army
elite training manual, from 2012 in Kansas, implied that by 2020, Europe would not be a major power. Perhaps they were thinking
that Europe would go out of business from a lack of Persian Gulf oil.
3. As for a ground war against Iran, I don't think the US or even the US with the former NATO coalition, would have any hope
and they know it. A real invasion force would require at least 250,000 troops, probably 500,000, maybe more. 80 million very determined
and united Iranians, many of whom who don't fear martyrdom, would make the Vietnam War look like a bad picnic with fire ants
. Yes, Vietnam had jungle for guerillas to hide behind, but South Vietnamese society was divided and many supported the Americans.
Iran has no such division. Even the Arab province of Khuzestan would stand united, knowing how the Shiite Arabs are mistreated
in the Eastern Province and in Kuwait.
Count me in as part of group two. As a former U.S. Army service member I can assure anyone reading this that this action is an
historic strategic mistake. What the Saker has outlined above is very likely. There is most probably no way to walk back now.
Who in the ME would negotiate with the U.S. Government? Their perfidy is well known. Many citizen in this country feel like they
are held hostage by a government that doesn't represent their interests or feelings. I hope the people in the ME know this.
Since the folks in the ME know that the US is a "pretend democracy" they also realize that the people of the USA are just as oppressed
by the AngloZionist regime as the people abroad. Frankly, I have traveled on a lot of countries and I have never come across anything
like real hostility towards the US American people. The very same people who hate Uncle Shmuel very much enjoy US music, literature,
movies, novel ideas, etc. I believe that the Empire is truly hated across the globe, but not the people of the USA.
Kind regards
The Saker
As long as people of the USA tolerate their government criminal activities around the world, and this is happening for last 70
years, I don't agree with your comment. These crimes are commited in the name of people of the USA, who are doing nothing to prevent
them. As for movies coming from US, most of them are propaganda about 'exceptional nation'. No thanks.
The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. That being said, the fall elections are going
to be of significant interest.
Couldn't agree with you less Saker. They share the spoils of war, generation after generation. From the killing of indigenous
population to neocolonial resource extraction today, they get their cut. You cannot have it both ways, enjoying the spoils of
war and hiding behind invalid rationalizations, pretending you have no-thingz to do with that.
Russian TV says that there were anti-war demonstrations in 80 (!) US cities.
I don't have the time to check whether this is true, but it sure sounds credible to me.
The Saker
This information is true. I personally took part in the march in Denver, Colorado. I would estimate we had about 500 people,
which is a lot more than most anti-war protests have ever gotten in recent memory.
Do not count out the possibility of a sudden large and massive anti-war movement suddenly springing out of nowhere.
Unfortunately, I do not see how "peaceful" protests will accomplish anything on their own. Rioting may be necessary. The system
needs to be shut down and commerce slow to a crawl so that nobody may ignore this.
I agree that there will first be a period of violent confusion, followed by -- well, what sane person even wants to think about
what possible horrors lie ahead?
The threat of one or more spectacular false flag attacks to further fan the flames would also appear to be a possibility.
Real evil has been unleashed, that is clear. The empire has decided to fight, and to fight very dirty.
Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US or NATO when they attacked Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.
Actually, no. I was working at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
But thanks for showing everybody how ugly, petty and clueless ad hominem using trolls can be!
The Saker
"I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong."
My personal observation is unfortunately the opposite. I think the population that is over 40 is probably leans 80% toward
the TV-watching imbecile category with zero critical thinking abilities and exposure to four plus decades of propaganda. The population
under 40 is largely too apathetic to have an opinion and unwilling to engage in research.
History will most likely play out in disaster resulting from a corrupt ruling class, systemic institutional rot, and brain-washed
public not realizing what's happened.
I will hazard a guess and say there are far more men than women in Group 1, and many more draft-age young adults of both sexes
in Group 2.
But by and large a disturbing number of people in America regard world events as being akin to a football game, with Team A
and Team B and a score to be kept. If things don't appear to be going well for their "team," they speak and behave irrationally,
with crass statements like "nuke the whole place and turn it into a glass parking lot." Impressive, isn't it? Grown adults, comporting
themselves like overindulged little children, always accustomed to getting their way – and displaying a terrifying willingness
to set the whole house on fire when they don't.
It is a spiritual illness which pollutes the USA. Terrible things will have to happen before the society can become well, again
Even if only 20% of the population join us, that will be enough. Because guess what? The TV-watching imbeciles are fat, lazy,
and they won't do anything to support the government either, and they definitely aren't brave enough to get in the way of an angry
mob
It's interesting to me, this comment of Sakers'. I have been thinking, with these revelations of the utter depravity and total
lack of what was once called "honour " and treating the enemy with respect, of a few instances which seemed to show me that not
all of America was like this.
There is a scene in the much loved but short lived** TV series "Firefly" in which the rebel "outsider" spaceship Captain offers
a doctor on the run a berth with them. The Doctor says "but you dont like me. You could kill me in my sleep" to which the Captain
replies "Son, you dont know me yet, So let me tell you know, If i ever try to kill you, you will be awake, you will be facing
me, and you will be armed"
Exactly I thought. There is a Code of Honour by which battles used to be fought. This latest by US has shown how low it's Ruling
Regime is, that is doesn't not see that. But from examples like the above, I gathered that there are people in America who still
hold to it closely – and that's good to know.
** Short lived because it showed as it's heroes a group of people who lived outside the Ruling Tyrannical Regime, who had fought
for Independence and lost, and now lived "by their wits" and not always according to law. Not surprising that the rulers of US
weren't going to allow that to go to air!!
Unfortunately I believe the largest group in the USA is the "nuke 'em group". All of my friends watch Fox and none have an understanding
of the empire.
Sake thank you as always for your excellent work. What do you think Iran will attack first?
Thanks Saker for this discussion/information space you provide when nothing is very trustworthy and on what is a holiday week
end for you.
Two points:
Never underestimate the perfidy of the Kurds. They held back on the censure/withdrawal vote in the Iraqi\
parliament and are probably offering withdrawal airport space for US military.
And Agreed, about most Americans being absolutely horrified and ashamed.Even Alex Jones had to put Syrian Girl on and to post
her on video.banned. One of his callers demanded that Alex apologize to his listening audience on "bended knee" for his support
of Trump's attack on Iran. When Alex tried to schmooze
the irate caller -- The man started yelling -- "Who cares, Alex, who cares about Iran my neighbors have no jobs
and are dying from drug overdoses. who cares about Israel? Let them take care of themselves."
Trump has sealed his own fate on many levels and ours her in looneylandia. It is said that a nation gets the leadership it
deserves. We are about to become a nation of the yard-sale.
Whew, this is something to chew on and try to digest. That first point jumped right off the page. General Soleimani was on an
official diplomatic mission, requested by the U.S.! They set him up and were waiting for him to get in his car at the airport
and go onto the road.
The entire world will know there is no way to justify this. It is just as ugly as the public murder of JFK. They have zero credibility
in all they say and do. It will be interesting to see who supports what is coming and who have gotten the message from this murder
and have decided they cannot support this beast.
How many missiles does the us have in the middle east?
How many air defense missiles does have iran?
Does iran have the ability to destroy us airbases to prevent aircraft from attacking iranian territory? That would be my first
move: destroying the ennemy s fighter jets while they are still on the ground.
How many missiles does iran can launch ? How far can they hit?
I think these are important questions if we want to make a good assessment of the situation
Thank you for the continuing courageous, fact-based reporting.
All as-yet-unenslaved-minds of the oppressed people living under the auspices of the empire share the horror of what has happened,
made worse so, for I personally, learning the evil duplicity of the 'fake' diplomacy of the masters of the U.S.A. administration.
If there had been any credibility whatsoever, left for the U.S.A. diplomatic integrity, it is now completely murdered.
I should like to point out, yet again, the perverse obviousness of the utter subordination of the utterly testiclesless
america n ' leadership ' by the affiliates, dually loyal extra-nationals, aligned to the quasi-nation of
pychopathic hatred against humanity.
In spite of, and now increasingly because of, the absurd perception management/propaganda agencies, completely controlled by
this aforementioned affiliation, and their ongoing absurd efforts, people are becoming aware of the ultimate source of the hatred
and agenda we re witnessing in the ME, and indeed, in ever country under the auspices of the empire.
It is becoming impossible to cover, even for the most timid followers of the citizens of empire-controlled nation states.
The war continues against the non-subliminated citizens, and will certainly escalate as the traction of the perception-management
techniques have been pushed way over their best-before date.
Even not wanting to know this, people are becoming aware of it.
I urge all those self-identifying with this affiliation of secretive hatred against humanity to disavow either publicly, or
privately, this collective of hatred.
The recusement of the fifth-column will undermine these machinations.
It is now the time to realize that no promise of superior upward mobility, in exchange for activities supporting the affiliation,
is worth the stark prospect of complete destruction of the biosphere.
Saker: what makes you think it will just be a couple of days of bombing? I would have thought they would set up a no fly zone
then fly over that country permanently blowing the shit out of any military thing on the ground until the gov collapses.
Iran doesn't have the ability to prevent this & running a country under these conditions is impossible.
Set up a no-fly zone over Iran? Iran is well aware of American air-power. They have a multi-layer air defense. And I wouldn't
be surprised that the Iranian's are capable of taking out U.S. satellites.
Iran knows their enemy. They have been preparing for conflict with the U.S. for 40 years. This is a sophisticated, and highly
advanced nation, with brilliant leadership. They understand what their weaknesses are, and what their strengths are.
The wild cards are threefold: Russia. China. North Korea. If one wants to think about the possible asymmetrical capabilities
of those three, let alone the pure power their militaries, it boggles the mind.
Prediction: The U.S. stands down on orders of their own military. People like John Bolton quietly pass away in their sleep.
The only no fly zone to be implemented will be on all american warplanes over Iran and Iraq. Do you remember the multimillion
drone that went down? Multipliy it by hundreds of manned planes. God, how delusional can you be?!!!
You have a fighting force that is a disgrace composed by little girls that start screeming once they get bullets flying over their
heads. You have aircraft battle groups that are sitting ducks waitng to go to the bottom of the sea. Wake up and get your pills,
man!
Paul23, from where will the aircraft take off to implement your "no-fly zone"? Any air base within 2,000 km would be destroyed
by a shower of cruise missiles and possibly drones.
It is Group 1 -- loud, reactionary, extremely vulgar, militant parasites -- which defines the US national character. Exceptional
and indispensable simply mean "entitled to other peoples' natural resources and labour output". Trying to reason with these lowlives
is a waste of time. Putin understands this; hence the new Russian weapons. The latter will be needed very soon.
Americans are a good people but America is one of the most heavily propagandized nations in the world. The media is corrupt.
The educational systems teach a sanitized version of history. But that is only a part of it.
Pro-Military propaganda is everywhere. Even before the Superbowl, jet bombers fly over the stadium – as if Militarism constituted
a basic American value. At Airports, "Military Personnel" are given preferential boarding. At retail stores customers are asked
to make donations to "military families." College football games are dedicated to "Military Appreciation Day." High Schools work
in unison with Military Recruiters to steer students into the Military. Even playground facilities for children that have video
displays display pro military messages. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Most of this propaganda is paid for out of the obscene military budget. The average citizen doesn't have a chance.
Americans are a good people, if they really knew what was being done in their name, they would put a stop to it.
Militant parasites do live in a world of total lies, deception, and delusion but never at the expense of their survival
instincts. US imperial coercion, mayhem, and murder globally are absolutely crucial to the American way of life, and the 99% know
it. Their living standards would drop enormously without the imperial loot. Thus, they dearly yearn for all the repression, war,
and chauvinism they vote for and more.
One thing is telling, at least for me. Who the f in the right state of mind kills other state's official and then admits of doing
it?!? The common sense sense tells me that you do something and to avoid bigger consequences you stay quet and deny everything.
Just like CIA is doing. Trump just put US military personnel in grave danger. We know how they accused Manning for showing the
to the world US war crimes. They put him in the jail for what Trump just did. But, I cannot believe that they are that much stupid.
If US does not want war, as Trump is saying, they could have done this and then blame someone else because now it has been shown
that they wanted to "talk" to Iran, as Iraqis PM said. At least, US brought new meaning to the word "talk"
The most damaging, no most devestating, assymetrical attack on the US would be a 'non violent' attack.
Let me quickly explain.
It has been well known since the exposure of the man behind the curtain during the great financial crisis of 2007-08 that all
Human operations – all Human life in fact – is financialised in some way.
Some ways being so sophisticated or 'subtle' that barely 1 person in 1000 is even aware, much less capable of understanding
them, much less the financial control grid (and state / deepstate power base) which empoverishs them and enslaves them to an endless
cycle of aquiring and spending 'money'.
Look deeply and the wise will see how 'Human resources' (as opposed to Human Beings) are herded like cattle to be worked on
the farm, 'fleeced', or slaughtered as appropriate to the money masters.
We have been programmed, trained, and conditioned to call 'currency units' (dollar/euro/pound/yuan, etc) 'money', when they
are actually nothing of the sort, they are state or bank issued money substitutes.
In the middle east and north africa some leaders recognised this determined how to escape slavery and subjegation. They attempted
to field this knowledge like an economic-nuke, but without the massive protection required, and they were destroyed by the empire
– Sadam Hussain with his oil for Gold (and oil for Euros) program, and Col. Gadaffi of Libya with his North African 'Gold Dinar'
and 'Silver Durham' Islamic money program.
To cut a very long story short – the evil empire depends upon all nations and peoples excepting thier pieces of paper currency
units as 'real' money – which the empire print / create in unlimited quantities to fund thier war machine and global progrram
of domination.
All financial markets are either denominated or settled in US Dollars (or are at least convertable).
All Nations Central Banks (except Irans I believe) are linked via various US Dollar exchange / liquidity mechanisms, and all
'settle' in US Dollars.
Currently all nations use US controlled electronic banking communications / exchange / tranfer systems (swift being the most
well known).
Would it therefore not make sence to go for the very beating heart of the Beast – the US financial system?
The most powerful attack against the empire would therefore be against this power base – the global reserve currency – the
US dollar – and the US ability to print any quantity of it (or create digits on a screen and call them 'Dollar Units').
It would be pointless trying to fight an emnemy capable of printing for free enough currency to buy every resource (including
peoples lives) – unless that super ability was destroyed or disrupted.
Example of a massive nuclear equivilent attack on the beast would be an internal and major disrruption of interbank electronic
communications (at all levels from cash machine operation and card payment readers up to interbank transfers and federal banking
operations).
Shut down the US banking system and you shut down the US war machine.
Not only that you shut down the US ability to buy resources and bribe powerful leaders – which means they wont be able to recover
from such a blow quickly.
Shutting down banking and electronic payments of all kinds would cause the US people – particularly those currently enjoying
bread and circus distraction and pacification – to tear appart thier own communities, and each other, as the spoiled and gready
fight for the remaining resources, including food and fuel.
The 'grid' has been studied in great depth by both Russia and China (and Israel as part of thier neo-sampson option) and we
can therefore deduce that Iran has some knowledge of how it works and where the weak links are (and not just the undersea optical
cables and wireless nodes).
I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar.
Reducing the US to an empoverished 3rd world state by taking its check book away would be a worthy and lasting revenge and
humiliation.
" I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar. "
No, the best way would be for each nation to ditch the intertwined, privately ( Rothschild ) controlled central banks, and
to return to printing their own money. Anything, short of that will just perpetuate the same system from a different home base
( nation ), most likely China next. This virus can jump hosts and it will given a chance.
Who knows what will happen, but an actual boots on the ground invasion of Iran will not happen. Iran is not Irak and things have
changed since that war.
US does not have 6 to 12 months to gather it's forces and logistics for an invasion (remember, the election is coming), plus
US no longer has the heavy lift assets to do this. Toss in the fact that Iran is now on a war footing and has allies in the general
AO, hired RoRo's and other logistics and supply assets will be targets before they get anywhere near the ports or beaches to off
load. Plus, you can kiss oil goodbye, Iran will close the straights a nanosecond after the first bomb is in the air.
An air assault such as Serbia will be very expensive, Iran will fight back from the first bomb if not before, and Iran has
a pretty viable air defense system and the missiles to make life miserable for any cluster of troops and logistics within roughly
300 kilometers of the borders if not longer. Look at a map. There is a long border between Iran and Irak, but as such and considering
the terrain, any viable ground attack has to come from Irak territory. With millions of Iraki's seething at what Uncle Sugar just
did and millions of Iranians seething at what Uncle Sugar just did, any invading troops will not be greeted with showers spring
blossoms. To paraphrase a quote, 'You will be safe nowhere, our land will be your grave.'
Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful, will put American troops on a war footing perilously close
to Russian territory and possibly directly on the Russian Lake, aka Caspian Sea, and sovereign territory of Russia. Won't happen,
VVP will not allow it.
Ergo, in spite of all the bluster and chest beating, at best all Foggy Bottom can do is bomb, bomb some more and bomb again.
The cost in airframes and captured pilots will be a disaster and if RoRo's and other logistic heavy lift assets or bases are hit,
the body bags coming back to Dover will be of numbers that can not be hidden as they are today with explanations that the dead
are victims of training accidents or air accidents.
Foggy Bottom, and Five Points with Langley, have painted themselves in to a corner and unfortunately for them, (and it's within
the realm of possibility that Five Points egged Trump on for this deal regardless of their protestations of innocence and surprise)
they are now in a case of put up or shut up. As a point of honor they will continue down the spiral path of open warfare and war
is like a cow voiding it's watery bowels, it splatters far beyond the intended target.
As my friend said a few years ago, damn you, damn your eyes, damn your souls, damn you back to Satan whose spawn you are. Go
back to your fetid master and leave us in peace.
Never The Last One, paper back edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056
A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.
"UPDATE2: RT is reporting that "One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel
injured". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation
promised by Iran will only come later."
Saker, Some of us might be curious to know what your experience with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research informs you about
the imminent Virginia gun bans and confiscations planned for this year and next. Can Empire afford to fight an actual shooting
war on two fronts, one externally against Iraq/Iran and the second internally against its own people, some of whom will paradoxically
be called away to fight on the first front? Perhaps the two conflicts could become conjoined as Uncle Shmuel mislabels every peaceful
gun owner who just wants to be left alone as a foreign enemy-sympathizer and combatant by default, thereby turning brother against
brother in a bloody prolonged hell in the regions immediately around Washington DC? Could the Empire *truly* be that suicidal?
'Mr. Trump, the Gambler! Know that we are near you, in places that don't come to your mind. We are near you in places that you
can't even imagine. We are a nation of martyrdom. We are the nation of Imam Hussein You are well aware of our power and capabilities
in the region. You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities.
You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end '
Gen. Soleimani (2018)
Hello Saker,
I would like to ask you a question.
According to the Russian nuclear doctrine "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the
use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression
involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies."
In your opinion does Russia consider Iran such an ally? Will Russia shield Iran against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes? In case
of an imminent nuclear strike on Iran is Russia (and possibly others) going to issue a nuclear ultimatum to the would-be aggressor?
And in case an actual nuclear attack on Iran happens is Russia going to retaliate / deter further attacks with its own nukes?
What is your opinion?
One thing: please do not start explaining why the above scenario is completely unthinkable, unrealistic and why it would never
ever happen. I need your opinion on the possible events if such an attack does take place or it is about to happen. I do not need
reasons why it would not happen; I need your opinion what might take place if it does happen. If you cannot answer my question,
have no opinion or simply do not want to answer it please let me know it.
In case there is a formal commitment by Russia – one I know not of – when, where was it made?
Thanks in advance.
I think USA still has nuclear option.
They will not hesitate to use it on Iran if Israel is in danger.
So, I think Iran shall be defeated anyway, as USA is much stronger.
Wrong. If the US uses nukes, then this will secure the total victory of Iran.
The Saker
How does this secure a total victory, dear Saker? Please help my to understand this: Nukes on every major city, industrial site,
infrastructure with pos. millions dead – how is this a victory?
I think that if Iran were to launch some devastating missiles into Israel, either a US ship/submarine or Israel will launch a
nuclear bomb into Iran. The US knows there is nothing to be gained by a ground invasion. If we [the US] were to start launching
missiles into Iran, Iran would rightfully be launching sophisticated arms back toward US ships and Israel and the US can't stand
for that. We are good at dishing it out, but lousy at receiving it.
I can only believe we assassinated Solieman [apologies] because it is the writhing of a dying petrodollar. The US is desperate.
But I don't understand how going to war is supposed to help?
"Beijing's ties with Tehran are crucial to its energy and geopolitical strategies, and with Moscow also in the mix, a broader
conflagration is a real possibility"
Last but not least, Happy Nativity to all Orthodox Christians (thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The
Saker.)
Let us all pray for peace.
Trump is the King of the South. Killing under a flag of parley is a rare thing these days and is the reason why Trump will end
up going to war with no allies by his side just like the path mapped oit for him in Daniel.
It's not a blunder.
Trump's goals pre-assassination:
1) withdraw US troops from the ME ("Fortress America") and
2) placate Israel
This is how it is done. Not a direct "hey guys, we have to bring the boys home." Trump tried that and got smashed by the Deep
State and Israel. Instead, he is going to force the Islamic world to do the talking for him by refusing to host our pariah army
(that's all they have to do, not destroy a major US base or two). Then even the Deep State will admit it's a lost cause. He can
say he did all he could while achieving his goals.
As The Saker pointed out, the troops being sent now are to evacuate, not to conquer Tehran. Next time this year the US will have
its troops home and Trump will be reelected
"... Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country. ..."
"... The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country? ..."
"... What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers. ..."
"... "We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran." Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country which does not honor the most basic of international law? ..."
"... Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'. ..."
"... Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary executions...What you make of this? https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some other think tankers.. ..."
"... Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be. On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work. ..."
Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met
a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD
MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who
fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting
Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.
The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member
of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi
general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.
We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections.
That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in
international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have
"paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings
of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.
Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to
yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country.
The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of
al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country?
Will we go if they vote that way? We should. If we do not, then we will be exposed as
imperialist hypocrites.
Trump should welcome such a vote. He wants to get out of the ME? What greater opportunity
could we have to do so?
Let us leave if invited to go. Let the oh, so clever locals deal with their own hatreds and
rivalries. pl
What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on
Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers.
But...Elora guesses you are being rhetorical here...because... if he would have died by
the sword...would not have he had the opportunity to defend himself against his
enemy/opponent?
Instead...he was caught on surprise...unarmed...and hit by an overwhelming force...he was
going to some funerals...
"We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent
ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran."
Tulsi Gabbard.
Some impressive images worth thousands words...just to remember everybody that this man was
an appreciated human being...doing his duty....for his motherland...and his God....
To better understand the pain of that elderly yazidi woman in the video, some testimony by
Rania Khalek on the role of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis ( the other militia commander killed who is
being as well slandered as terrorist along Soleimani ...) in stopping yazidi genocide in Iraq
when nobody else was giving a damn, less any help, for this people...
Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have
no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign
country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country
which does not honor the most basic of international law?
And am I alone to be disgusted to see the senior members of our government lie blatantly
and constantly, when they're not fellating the nearest likudnik....
We go where we are wanted and appreciated. We have no skin in Iraq. Build the Wall and
protect our own borders. Concentrate our resources on cyber-security.
Tulsi makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately that disqualifies her for the presidency, not
because she couldn't execute the functions of the presidency, but because neither the party
apparatchiks nor the voters would give her the chance. These days either nationalistic
claptrap or promises of more freebies are what carry the day. Quelle domage, eh?
As for the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. forces? That's an interesting question. If
they did, they'd better vote to expel the "den of spies" at the embassy and insist on our
having a normal sized legation (as all countries would be well advised to do). But if they
do, would we leave? I personally doubt it even though it would be best if we did and let the
Iraqis do what they will, which would probably be reverting back to some sort of strongman
govt, of a type more suited to their cultural traditions and inclinations. It's high time we
afforded the rest of the world the type of cultural and political autonomy we claim to revere
so much.
So, we leave? A good thing for us and for them and the world at large.
Or, we don't? Then we expose the truth the rest of the world already knows, but we at least
expose the truth to our own people who have been fed a steady diet of mendacious BS about
what we've been doing over there all these years.
That attack on the "airport limo" vehicles leaving Baghdad airport sure took some nerve on
our part to think that we could sell something like that...
And, did Trump actually order it, or did someone else in the MIC order it first and Trump
laid claim to it afterwards? Uncle Joe, if he had ordered it, would have afterwards announced
the execution of a fall guy and denied any complicity! If Trump didn't order it, he should
throw whoever did under the bus instead of crowing and wrapping himself in the flag. I wonder
about what actually happened in planning this hit job on prominent military people on their
way to a funeral for 31 people who may or may not have had anything whatsoever to do with the
death of a single American mercenary in Iraq in an attack by persons unknown on a small
outpost.
It's times like this I wish I was a fly on the wall, listening to what the Russian General
Staff conversations regarding this assassination are at this moment.
Trump IMHO would do well to seek Putin's counsel on how to exit the corner that Trump has
backed US into. While this spells problems for our US, it also creates additional problems
for Russia in the ways that could cause them MAJOR problem as well as in a full blown Mideast
War with many players in the mix. Not a good mix either.
Israel can't handle a full blown Mideast War, no matter how much their narcissistic
national psyche thinks they can. Israel is a mere postage stamp in a sea of rage, which
tsunami waves could very easily consume them. Sheldon Adelson and his Likud/NEOCON blowhards
have no concept of what is on the short horizon, that can go one way or the other.
I'm glad I'm retired in this instance. My glass of bourbon is more palatable than the
grains of Mideast sand that fixing to get stirred up.
God help us all.
Pat, why does the US military always get left with the shit-storms to clean up after?
Why?
Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to
Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the
dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who
believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'.
I can hear the talking points already ...
1. 'Obama made the same mistake and it created ISIS.'
2. 'Iran has taken over Iraq, it's not a legitimate request' (look at how we selectively
recognize govts in South America and no one blinks).
3. 'Iran will use Iraq as a base to attack us' (yeah, its about 100 miles closer).
I can't stand what we have become, the jackals have taken over and the MSM attacks the
very few who are not jackals.
OK. Who do you think would have had the power to order the strike? Not the CIA, the
military would not accept such an order. Not the chairman of the JCS, he is not in the chain
of command. That leaves Esper, SECDEF. Really? He looks like a putschist to you? You are
ignorant of the American government.
Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary
executions...What you make of this?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some
other think tankers..
Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by
the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no
different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and
his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be.
On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work.
Now that Trump so much complains and threats by Twitter about "civilians" in Idlib...we
remember the aerial bombing of the Iraq-Kuwzit highway by US...
This crime cannot be overstated as one of the most disgusting acts the US committed in the
region. A column of withdrawing soldiers and civilians which were even found to be in
compliance with UN resolution 660, were completely eviscerated by the US Air Force. A war
crime. https://twitter.com/mideastwitness/status/1211109428759613440
As Lozion said, USAF has attacked five positions of the PMU's (KH units), three in Irak and
two in Syria, it seems there are a scores of people have been killed and injured in those air
strikes, some of them seems to be senior commanders
The other possible replacements include Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, Deputy Secretary of
State Biegun, U.S. ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell, Trump's Iran envoy Brian Hook, and two
hard-liners from the Senate, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton. Most of these names inspire some
mixture of loathing and dread, and of the seven men being considered Biegun is the only one
remotely qualified to take the job. Hook has
disqualified himself , and he shouldn't even be working at the State Department right now
much less running it. Grenell functions as little more than an international
troll , and he has done a terrible job representing the U.S. in Berlin, so promoting him
would be an equally terrible mistake.
Rubio and Cotton are fanatics with the most toxic foreign policy views, and they would also
likely be very poor managers of the department. In that respect, they are very much like
Pompeo. Mnuchin would likely have great difficulty getting confirmed, and replacing one
sanctions-happy Secretary with the Treasury Secretary who has been enforcing those sanctions is
no improvement at all. As for O'Brien, he was a
bad choice for National Security Advisor , he has done nothing since he took over from
Bolton to suggest otherwise, and so it makes absolutely no sense to promote him. Biegun clearly
has the confidence of the Senate following his overwhelming confirmation vote to be Deputy
Secretary, so having him take over the department for whatever time is left in Trump's term
seems the best available choice.
It is a measure of how chaotic and unsuccessful Trump's foreign policy is that we are
talking about the possible nomination of a third Secretary of State in less than three years.
Pompeo has outlasted many of his administration colleagues to become one of the longest-serving
Cabinet officials under this president, and his tenure is not even two years old. It is no
wonder that the list of likely replacements is so weak. Who would want to join a scandal-ridden
administration with a failed foreign policy?
Pompeo's departure will be good news for the State Department, and the sooner it comes the
better. There has rarely been a Secretary of State as dishonest and political as Pompeo, and
his brief time running the department has been one of the low points in its history.
Considering the damage that Pompeo has done along with the harm done by Tillerson, the next
Secretary of State will have a lot of work to do to rebuild and not much time to do it in.
Pompeo should clear the way for the next Secretary and resign as soon as possible.
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country, they
will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They will
not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war. -- John
Turner, 1922
"... "There can be no doubt in the international community's mind that Syria has retained chemical weapons in violation of its agreement and its statement that it had removed them all. There is no longer any doubt ," Mattis told reporters. ..."
"... there's absolutely No Doubt that the Outlaw US Empire's mouthpieces are lying yet again. ..."
"... Perhaps the more disturbing alternative is Mattis is fully aware of everything surrounding the run up to the 2003 Iraq war and is thinking to himself: "Declaring there is no doubt worked last time..." ..."
"... The particular genius of our oppressors has been to erode the public's collective memory. With a dumbed-down educational system, a 24-hour propaganda, and an utterly vacuous popular culture, we are deprived of precisely that faculty on which following Burke's admonition depends. With our "post-literate" reliance on the Internet, it's a wonder any of us can remember what happened last week. ..."
"... If the Syrians used them, then clearly they have them. Did the Syrians use them? The US does not recognize that as a valid question. That is where Mattis goes astray. It is a valid question. We were fooled by false flag use before. There are signs it may have happened again. It is not clear enough to be sure, but it is not clear enough to be sure the other way either. ..."
"... That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. ~Aldous Huxley ..."
"There can be no doubt in the international community's mind that Syria has retained chemical weapons in violation of its
agreement and its statement that it had removed them all. There is no longer any doubt ," Mattis told reporters.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them
to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will
lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors ...
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
And there's absolutely No Doubt that the Outlaw US Empire's mouthpieces are lying yet again. Makes me even more curious
as to what Putin said to Tillerson, as both Putin's and Lavrov's remarks about the global situation are blunter and more accusatory
than ever before. Given the info provided by Lavrov at the press conference following the meeting of their Foreign Ministers Astana,
I must assume the SCO nations are on the same page regarding the entire International Situation. In June in Astana, the SCO Summit
will admit India and Pakistan as full members and begin the process to enroll Iran. Here, again, is the link to that press release,
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2734712
Perhaps the more disturbing alternative is Mattis is fully aware of everything surrounding the run up to the 2003 Iraq war
and is thinking to himself: "Declaring there is no doubt worked last time..."
The particular genius of our oppressors has been to erode the public's collective memory. With a dumbed-down educational system,
a 24-hour propaganda, and an utterly vacuous popular culture, we are deprived of precisely that faculty on which following Burke's
admonition depends. With our "post-literate" reliance on the Internet, it's a wonder any of us can remember what happened last
week.
If the Syrians used them, then clearly they have them. Did the Syrians use them? The US does not recognize that as a valid
question. That is where Mattis goes astray. It is a valid question. We were fooled by false flag use before. There are signs it
may have happened again. It is not clear enough to be sure, but it is not clear enough to be sure the other way either.
Therefore, Mattis is wrong to conclude anything either way. However, given the official position of the US, he can hardly
say anything different in public.
We ought to be looking at this very closely, but we vetoed such a close look by the international body that would do it. That
would put into question the missile strikes we launched based on assumptions.
Pepe Escobar evokes T.S. Eliot's Hollow Men in his latest enumeration of Russia & China's strategic relationship. Oh, and
I forgot to mention in #1 that BRICS also stands with Russia regarding all events Syria and Ukraine; and despite many efforts
to destabilize it, BRICS still stands in solidarity and continues its work to economically counter the Outlaw US Empire, which
Pepe also reminds us about,
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201704211052866086-washington-terrified-of-russia-china/
Why would insignificant village be intentionally "gassed by Assad" while he has an absolute upper hand on the field? - is the
question nobody in the Western media asks, nor has an answer to it.
Bio-chem weapons would be last resort to use on the battlefield in a desperate situation - was an original thought of making
and having them.
Me and probably all of us here have no doubt that it is just a false flag perpetrated, oversaturated and pathetically served
to us to validate continuation to oust Assad for Saudi's concessions, oil and money. Pure con and a rather amateurish one.
As expected, no doubt. :)
Which state is Iran's greatest enemy? - Israel .. Where was the statement made? .. Who are the greatest financial political contributors
in America? Res Ipsa Loquitur.
The importance of Mattis's pronouncement, as well as some "
tilling of the soil " in the prestige press, is that another false flag attack is coming. The Hillary-McCain directive to
take out Syrian airfields is going to be implemented.
@1 karlof1
Talking Lavrov, talking history... The comprehensive history lesson Lavrov delivers to Tillerson is worth watching a number of
times. It is an absolute shut down, in Tillersons face...rolling straight off the tongue. Tillerson: 'trust us, we are sure, beyond doubt, Assad has chemical weapons' Lavrov: 'here have this 5 minute history lesson you
cabbage. '
SmoothieX12 Difference this time is Syria has Russian backing and the BRICS [almost half the population of the World].Russia knows
Syria is the key to the Middle East, if Syria fell, Hezbollah could not resist the head choppers from the North and East and attacks
from the aparthied state from the South. Iran would then be exposed and attacked financially and militarily. Of course its a huge
gamble, will those nutcases in Washington take it? These are existential stakes for many states in the region.
Assad's recent announcement about wanting to buy more Russian air defense systems comes close to addmiting that the Russians
will not be defending Syrian airspace.
To paraphrase tRump:
...the submarines, even more powerful than the carriers...
So, all the assets are in place. We're starting to see the accusation swarm against Assad occur at a rate that's too fast to
refute individual charges against the Syrian president.
Don't be surprised if the decapitation strikes against Syria and N.Korea happen simultaneously.
@18 This probably won't appear in the MSM so I'll post it here...
"Emmanuel Macron fears this as well. The 39-year-old presidential candidate – an unknown quantity here just two years ago–
is campaigning for the Jewish vote, keenly aware of the threat. But when France goes to the polls on Sunday, its Jews will face
a unique choice: To vote in the spirit of Jewish Americans, prioritizing principles of welfare and liberal democratic values,
or in the Israeli posture, with security first in mind.
Macron is betting on the former, appealing to Jewish community values shared with the French Republic of liberty, equality
and fraternity.
"He knows there is a real danger from a double extremism – from the far-Right with Marine Le Pen, and from the far-Left," said
Gilles Taieb, a prominent member of the French Jewish community who joined Macron's En Marche! campaign in August. "He understands
the specific needs of the Jewish community.""
Assad's recent announcement about wanting to buy more Russian air defense systems comes close to addmiting that the Russians
will not be defending Syrian airspace.
This is rather a confusing (in BBC's or NYT vein) statement, since Russia, through a number of her high ranking representatives
openly stated that she will upgrade Syria's AD. Syria IS NOT going to buy them, since has very little precious money, but what
Syria is doing already is letting a truck load of Russia's extracting and construction companies on her market. Google Translate
will do the job (link is in Russian)
Iran would then be exposed and attacked financially and militarily.
I have a different opinion about this dynamics and I will not be surprised if Iran "suddenly" will become a full member of
ODKB. At least for a little while.
Fog of war warning and all, but Assad definitely mentioned price as a factor in getting New AD systems in a sputniknews interview.
Of course, mechanism of what in Russian is called vzaimoraschety (mutual "payments" or "coverage") is always established. The
price of military technology may be compensated through other means, such as contractual preferences or any other privileges.
I think Russia's oil companies will be quite happy and so will be weapons' manufacturers. Come to think about it--they already
are.
The question of Russian air defence missiles to Syria should not even be asked, Israel has nuclear weapons, the US don't care,
the US supplies Israel with the latest OFFENSIVE weaponry and aircraft [f35, f16 ect]plus Iron Dome. It would be the height of
folly for Russia not to give Syria the means to defend themselves.
Just as an FYI, I'm unable to access this site when I use a VPN server based in Canada, however VPN servers located elsewhere
connect without issue. Anyone else experience this?
what's the sound of one mad dog jarhead barking? if it sounds off in the media echo-chamber, does it make a noise? it only echoes
in the tnc msm. every american knows he's howling at the moon. it may well be that there's plenty of energy among those clipping
coupons on american war bonds for more war, and no energy among those who fruitlessly opposed empire in the face of those same
coupon-clippers.
its all-war, all-the-time with tee-rump just as it was with obama, bush, and clinton before him. people who are surprised at
this are no more acute than those who might salute the flag the mad dogs have again run up the flag pole.
it would be exceptionally keen if all those cruise missiles unleashed on syria and/or north korea not only turned around, but
struck their origin. wouldn't that be the end?
The American public has to be the most ignorant and gullible group of ass-hats on the planet, if they fall for this BS being shoveled
at them again. God-almighty this crap gets old!!!
All for the sake of global hegemony, and more wealth for the Trumps of the world.
First of all, I don't know how you can tell those speeches are the same though I heard them both mention WMDs. But here's the
kicker, that's not the Canadian PM, not on that date, he was the Leader of the Opposition at that time. Harper became PM later.
Jean Chretien was the PM and he kept Canada out of Iraq. End of story.
b cites Edmund Burke "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
There is also this little ditty:
"If at first you don't succeed try and try and try again. Never stop trying."
It works very well for TPTB who hold the sheeples are too dumbed down and will never recall moving lips.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
@ Perimetr 16
Israel needs to take the other side of the Golan - that's where the oil bubbles bigly. Ask Genie HQ NJ and while at it check
out their Board of Directors, Strategic Advisory Board. Hint, it's the gang and No One dares to spank
[Alert: page may load slowly but a worthy wait].
So forget about it. The op word is Strategic
Israel can strike Syria with 10 MOABs per second 24hr/7 and lips will be festiviously sealed tighter than a crabs rear-end.
A long essay by Robert Kennedy Jr Feb 2016:
"[W]e may want to look beyond the convenient explanations of religion and ideology and focus on the more complex rationales
of history and oil, which mostly point the finger of blame for terrorism back at the champions of militarism, imperialism and
petroleum here on our own shores," Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., intoned in an April editorial for
Ecowatch
thanks b... waiting for the exceptional empire to collapse.. not holding my breathe here.. the same game is being played and the
same folks are hoping for the same results.. they are already getting them when it comes to money thrown into war and prep for
war.. they are winning regardless if they can convince everyone to go deeper..
@17 wwinsti.. could be a head fake... no one knows for sure other then assad and russia.. welcome to the world of endless speculation..
@28 ia... this canuck is not having any issues accessing moa.. who nose.. maybe trudeau and freeland have set up a firewall to
protect us from a different perspective then the 'rah, rah, rah - war 24/7 we support twitter mans agenda'..
The verdict on the chemical attack was swift and certain. When it comes to the recent bus bombing, somehow it is so different:
We are investigating, but I don't have any specific ... But we think it's exaggerated . Inqury on Syria. Security Council Stakeout, 21 April, 2017
Those people have no shame. They are not going to investigate the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack. All the want is the flight
plans from the Syrian government to finish their "work".
"No doubt" is not a statement about an objective reality out there (in country x); it is a statement about the subjective reality
in the mind of the speaker (observer). A cunning ploy to speak a non-falsehood (about the mental conditioning of speaker and audience)
that is merely opinion implying it is fact about a situation lacking empirical evidence.
This hype is getting so tedious.
The WMD crap from The International (Christian Colonial) Community isn't about 'manufacturing consent'. It's about manufacturing
CONSENSUS within the Christian Colonial Community itself. The Jew-controlled MSM takes care of the brainwashing. We already know
that bribed politicians are paid to disregard the Will Of The People.
"Those people have no shame. They are not going to investigate the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack."
They're just plugging stuff into the dossier so that historians will be able to look back and see how reasonable and restrained
the U.S. was before deciding to bomb the crap out of Assad and his country.
Here's how they can do that : They say " Look , we admit that proving guilt absolutely is next to impossible in these events
, and that we may have been a bit hasty in bombing Syria's airfield before the investigation was done. We'll even concede the
odds in Assad's favor , say 3:1 , or only a 25% chance he was guilty for any given sarin attack , even though we're pretty sure
he's been the culprit. Just know this , when we're sure - let's set a higher standard here and say 90% certainty - when we're
sure about his culpability for just one use of sarin , big or small , that's our red line, after that he gets the full Gaddafi
, no questions asked. OK ? Understand ? "
Everyone nods , probably including some here. When there's any uncertainty , which there always is , he gives Assad the benefit
of the doubt , and then requires a higher threshold to hold him accountable. You can't get more reasonable than that.
Well , maybe somewhat predictably , false-flag activity picks up - two sarin attacks per month over the following two months
, always with the typical doubts about who dunnit. The U.S. keeps their word , with no significant escalation. With the next event
, as soon as sarin is confirmed but well before we think we know who was guilty , the U.S. announces breach of the red line and
launches a full-scale attack on Assad and his partners , demanding that he step down immediately or watch as his country is turned
to rubble. Why ?
Counting the three sarin attacks to date , and the five more that follow , the probability that the rebels committed all eight
attacks is .75^8 , or 10%. That means there's a 90% chance that Assad was responsible for at least one attack - i.e. , he crossed
the red line.
That's why the false-flags will continue , and why a regime-change war with Syria is inevitable , and why the buy-in by the
public when it happens will be nearly unanimous.
That could just as easily be interpreted as Russia planning to intervene while claiming that "Syrian" air defenses have shot
down US aircraft/tomohawaks. I certainly don't know for sure that Russia has actually decided to take it to that level. Perhaps
the Russians will never do that, or perhaps they themselves have not yet decided but want to keep that option open to them if
later they do. At any rate, there is no advantage at all to reassuring the Americans that they will NOT intervene. It is best
to keep Mattis and McMaster guessing just like we are.
I do not know to what degree US planners are confident of easily overcoming serious air defenses. They probably feel that if
they defeat the S400s then US military dominance will remain unchallenged for a very long time. I'm not sure if they've gamed
the opposite outcome. If "Syria" shoots down a few F22s or 35s the US is in deep trouble and any victory (to the extent bringing
jihadists to power can be called a victory) would be a Pyrhic one.
Well, fuck! Here we go again; U.S. is blitzing the international airways with propaganda and lies.
Zieg heil, zeig heil, herr Trump...
You bloody, rotten, bastard!
Karlof1 and Harrylaw: talking about BRICS'support to Russia, never trust Brazil. After Lula and Rousseff,the right-wing president
Michel Temer has transformed the country in just another latin american lackey of Trump...
Of course, there's no way to predict the outcomes of certain actions or read minds of any of the various actors involved with
this sarin drama, but the events in Syria since Sept. 2015 or even Sept. 2001 do allow us to lean our interpretations a certain
way, don't you think?
At the end of the day, an increasingly desperate USA has available 4 Ohio class submarines that carry just short of 200 cruise
missiles each. They are, with some quibbling, decapitation weapon systems designed to overwhelm nearly any defense. I can't see
the US not making use of such a capacity if they are as hell bent on regime change as they claim.
Because the strike on Syrian territory was against International law
http://www.dw.com/en/us-missile-strike-on-syria-a-violation-of-international-law/a-38389950
Putin has to make up his mind, if the US strike Syria again or repeatedly without harming Russial personnel or assets and
without a military response, Russia should sue for peace and get the hell out of Syria, thereby acknowledging that the US are
the only Nation that can decide the fate of Nations with regard to International affairs. In other words the unanimous agreement
of the 5 veto wielding members of the UNSC will no longer be applicable and article 2 of the UN Charter is null and void.
Article 2. [3] UN Charter All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international
peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
[4] All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Are you the NEW York Times commentator. I really enjoy your comments their. I hardly drop by NYT however this week you were
the only sane poster on North Korea. Your a jem keep it up. In fact I think cut and pasted you comment onto a Australian paper.
Bravo.
Yes, the US has an enormous amount of cruise missiles. But judging by the damage done by the last 60 tomohawaks, it does not
have enough to destroy Syrian air power with tomohawaks alone. In past invasions, they were used to destroy radars so that the
subsequent air campaign can be conducted without contending with air defenses. They are not an end in and of themselves. In this
case, that isn't possible unless the US plans on attacking Russian forces on both land and sea directly. The US is so far extremely
reluctant to kill any Russian personnel and that is not likely to change. And this reluctance is not because of good sportsmanship.
Add to that, the Russians have shut down the deconfliction line. It means the US can't warn the Russians to get out of the
way during the next attack. In other words, the Russians are prepared to be human shields to protect Syria. That does not scream
"we are backing down" to me. There are also indications that US and allied sortie rates over Syria have dropped in number quite
substantially since communication has been shut down.
While I agree the US is absolutely determined to destroy Syria, it is not at all clear that Russia plans to step aside while
the US does it.
OT but LA, SF, NYC all experience power outages at the same and only RT makes the connection while MSM oblivious. Meanwhile exercises
for an EMZ attack over a major US city ongoing. Strange
Peter AU @52. Sorry Peter I was being a little sarcastic. I think it has already been established that any US attack on Syria
must be countered in the first instance by Syrian forces, since Russia was invited into Syria to help put down terrorism, it might
not be in Russia's interest or anybody's [unless their forces are hit] to start WW3. Hence my point about arming Syria up the
same way the US does with Israel and Saudi Arabia.All 5 veto wielding powers are of course above International law for all time,
so that if the other members of the Security Council propose a Resolution condemning US aggression, the US simply uses its veto
and that Resolution goes down the memory hole. Here is an excellent article on the veto..
http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/ags-legal-advice.pdf
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" does not appear in the complete 12-volume set of Works of Edmund Burke,
and Bartlett's books of quotations have never included it, but the allegation nowadays is common that Burke said this, because
many writers say things that are false. Anyone who trusts a mere allegation, like gossip, is not reliable and cannot be trusted
in what that person alleges, because falsehoods mix in with truths for any such person. The person isn't necessarily fabricating,
not necessarily intentionally falsifying; the person just doesn't care whether what he or she alleges to be true IS true. Any
such person is untrustworthy to cite on anything.
Furthermore, that alleged Burke-quotation doesn't even sound like Burke's writing-style, which was a very distinctive style.
So, anyone who has actually read Burke would suspect that this apocryphal statement from him was probably never said by him. Only
pretentious people would allege that Burke said it -- people who pretend to have read Burke.
@54 lysander, 'In other words, the Russians are prepared to be human shields to protect Syria.'
i don't think that's the message sent or that it's indicative of the action to be taken in the event of another us attack on
syria. as it stood pre-tee-rump-attack the us could call the russians and 'warn' them that the cruise missiles were theirs ...
now they can no longer do that, and the russians have made a point of stating that an attacking aircraft/missile - and the originating
vessel/station - are going to be shot down/taken down ... that the russians will not waste time in trying to figure out just whose
attacking missiles/aircraft they are destroying.
i think it will be a cold day in hell before the russians 'sacrifice' themselves to make a point.
Eric Zuesse | Apr 22, 2017 7:15:46 AM | 59
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
This from, of all places, Yahoo answers (blech); however it is referenced;
CITES: George Santayana, The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress: Reason in Common Sense 284 (2nd ed., Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York, New York 1924 (originally published 1905 Charles Scribner's Sons)(appears in chapter XII, "Flux and Constancy
in Human Nature")). George Santayana, The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress 82 (one-volume edition, Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York, New York 1954)(appears in Book I, Reason in Common Sense, chapter 10, "Flux and Constancy in Human Nature").
This information was found at: http://members.aol.com/Santayana/gsguestbook.htm
``Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it,'' said Penton, echoing philosopher George Santayana's famous admonition.
All this lies, fake news, psyop by US, NATO and MSM is possibly just because they rule the world. They refuse any other views,
parties, nations questioning their wars and propaganda. Its quite scary when you think about it.
Like, is there ANYONE condemning this in the MSM nowadays? No one.
Every journalist (MSM) from Germany, to US, to Spain, to Portugal, to Columbia, to Sweden, to South Korea etc, all western MSM
peddle this same propaganda for the american empire and their endless wars.
1984?
@ 60, I don't think sacrifice is the word I would use. The US understands that killing openly Russian soldiers soldiers (vs indirectly
by arming terrorist proxies) would mean Russian retaliation. And therefore will not do it.
@ 60, I don't think sacrifice is the word I would use. The US understands that killing openly Russian soldiers soldiers (vs indirectly
by arming terrorist proxies) would mean Russian retaliation. And therefore will not do it.
well, we're real impressed that you've memorized all 12 volumes of Edmund Burke, but for those of us who haven't, Google does
credit him with this remark. a simple oversight, perhaps? so thanks for the lesson(even if you haven't cleared anything up), and
the mini diatribe, teach, even though your scholarly footnotes have fuck all to do with b's intent.
"no doubt"
Did they get this from Bush's speech to congress in March, 2003?
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some
of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Real intelligence left all kinds of doubt especially from the family members of Iraqi scientists who went into Iraq to ask. They
risked their lives for this and were ignored.
"we assess" - recent prepeated mantra from USG declarations. I'm waiting for The Donald or his CIA minion to declare Syrian
WMDs to be a "slam dunk." I think Cheney used to say "we have it on good authority." The rule for most politicians and media is
if their lips move they're lying.
Perhaps after another coalition of the willing has destroyed Syria will the US president joke about searching for WMDs like Bush
did. An insult to us all.
The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Quotations has the quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" made
by George Santayana (1863 - 1952) in The Life of Reason (1905) vol. 1, ch. 12
Oxford is fairly reliable sourcing for such questions, FWIW. As far as the western world and history another quote comes to
mind from Dante Alighiere (1265-1321) that translates: Abandon all hope, you who enter! [with regard to history].
We need a Jon Stewart style montage of all these people saying "no doubt" followed by the group No Doubt saying it. (like he did
with the GOP/FNC meme of "It's A Trap")
"Counting the three sarin attacks to date , and the five more that follow , the probability that the rebels committed all eight
attacks is .75^8 , or 10%. That means there's a 90% chance that Assad was responsible for at least one attack - i.e. , he crossed
the red line."
I understand that this was presented as an incorrect reasoning, but perhaps not all readers here see the mistakes. First, probability
is used to describe random events and not historical events. The post that you see here could be written by Piotr Berman, an identifiable
individual, or by an impostor. In itself the claim that it was written by Piotr Berman is true or false, it does not have probability.
However, from the point of view of a reader, it is but one of a large number of comments posted on internet so one can apply some
guessed estimates, like "10% of comments signed with uniquely identifiable names are written by impostors". This of course begs
the question how we arrive at such estimates etc. In short, the probability assigned to a single sarin attack is an exhalation
from someones terminal end of the digestive system and quite hazardous if used.
However, even if we form an abstract model in which a chemical attack is randomly perpetrated by X with probability p and not
by X with probability 1-p, and we have 8 attacks, the probability that X perpetrated at least one attack is anywhere between 0
and 1. The formula (1-p)^8 applies only if the events are independent. For example, if X possesses the means to perpetrate an
attack with probability q, then the probability that it perpetrated any of many attacks is never larger than q.
That said, probabilities have their place in war strategy. If a false flag attack has a random effect on a key decision maker,
that repeating it many times may increase the probability that a desired decision will be made. And Trump's and Obama's behavior
has (and had) a degree of randomness.
You're correct about the technical probability considerations , of course , but I think the real-life effect of each new false-flag
may fall closer to the line drawn by the bad model than by the good. I think all parties involved know that each new false-flag
has an incremental impact driving us closer to war ,in addition to the random one you mention , at least as long as there remains
considerable doubt about the true culprit with each new event.
From Khan al-Assal to Ghouta to Khan Sheikhoun we've moved closer and closer to the real "red line". For the anti-Assad camp
, the false-flag strategy is still working and they'll keep it up , though I'm sure they're getting impatient. For the Assad side
, gaining territory has the opposite effect , moving us away from the red line. Had Assad and Putin doubled-down on battlefield
intensity after Aleppo and made further gains , rather than pausing as they did , I think they'd be in much better shape today.
The usage of "there can be no doubt" is a bit different from what we could learn in English classes. First, "doubt" is a kind
of thought-weed that is at times harmless, and at times seriously detrimental and thus subjected to eradication efforts. "There
is no doubt" declares the success of the eradication campaign while "There can be no doubt" is more like "There should not be
any doubt", i.e. an exhortation to continue and expand eradication campaign. Usually the large fields of major agribusiness companies
are well tended with copious amounts of herbicides, while on the edges, meadows, smaller organically tended fields etc. the weeds
can survive and in isolated places they can even thrive.
From that point of view excessive consumption of, say, NYT or TV news can make people positive for "symptoms of sarin or sarin-like
chemicals" like Roundup when we take swabs from their mucosal surfaces and analyze with sensitive instruments. Smaller but proudly
"mainstream" publications like New Yorker have no doubt either (in this case it is easy, because New Yorker is very compartmentalized,
few individuals are allowed to write on the topic, this way they can keep doubt from showing without mass use of chemicals). The
Nation has some articles written by doubt-free persons (like Katha Pollit) but doubt levels are significant -- kept down mostly
by small number of articles on Syria. And Counterpunch is a weed in itself.
How about this: The US is prime Nazi country/regime, and the Zionist state is modeled after the US, or the European racism.
The settler states are known for its unprecedented violence. Unfortunately, still the phenomenon of extermination is connected
with Germany and not the US.
One of many U.S. state laws that Nazis examined was this from Maryland:
"All marriages between a white person and a Negro, or between a white person and a person of Negro descent, to the third generation,
inclusive, or between a white person and a member of the Malay race or between a Negro and a member of the Malay race, or between
a person of Negro descent to the third generation, inclusive, and a member of the Malay race . . . [skipping over many variations]
. . . are forever prohibited . . . punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than eighteen months nor more
than ten years."
@78 bp. 'From that point of view excessive consumption of, say, NYT or TV news can make people positive for "symptoms of sarin
or sarin-like chemicals" like Roundup when we take swabs from their mucosal surfaces and analyze with sensitive instruments.'
very nice piotr berman. the metaphor is so well drawn, and in the following cases as well. One has a malady, here, a malady.
One feels a malady.
the dysfunctions all swell from a common source, into a slum of bloom. the wigs despoiling the Satan ear.
Yes, I was apprehensive at first, but the new regime toed BRICS's lines, participated in its functions as usual, and has tried
to use it in its national interest. Brazil's internal contradictions don't allow it to abandon its one big success story. And
as I stated, BRICS policy declarations are all in line with Russia and China's in every area.
While many of the big brains go to Wall St. to front guess Mr. Market, there are others, "no doubt", that build geopolitical
dashboards, models and simulations for the elite to monitor all the countries/governments/militaries/public.
In spite of their visibility of their universe, they are losing control and know it. The absurdity of the ongoing global debt
situation is a tell.
All countries have evolving relationships with both the US and China as well as within the various groups of nations. China
is talking growth and the US/private finance is talking austerity. It is not if but a matter of when growth wins out and global
finance is put under public control.
That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history. ~Aldous Huxley
Afghan officials have said nearly 100 militants and no civilians were killed, but the remoteness of the area, the presence
of Islamic State fighters, and, more recently, American security forces, has left those claims unverified.
From the point of view of election promise of detente with Russia, Trump clearly betrayed them. He was a neocon puppet
from the beginning to the end, His policy was not that different from hypothetical policy of Hillary administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact, she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with zero resistance from either party. ..."
"... It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither ..."
"... Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so spectacularly is beyond depressing. ..."
"... The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise "Orwellian" media environment. ..."
"... The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a puppet. ..."
"... The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from the US. ..."
"... Failing impeachment, from the attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment. ..."
"... Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later. ..."
Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact,
she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with
zero resistance from either party.
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled "
25 times Trump
was soft on Russia ," in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case
that the U.S. president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his
administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or
failed to say other words; "Trump has repeatedly praised Putin," "Trump refused to say Putin is
a killer," "Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016," "Trump made light of Russian
hacking," etc. It also includes the
completely false but oft-repeated narrative
that "Trump's team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine", as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly
invalidated claim that "Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has
focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS."
CNN's 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing
about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in
Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at
all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an
altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the
words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing ,
it's clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being "soft" on
Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must
absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he's been doing so with zero resistance from
either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with
Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that
neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in
the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony,
and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is
neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance
toward Russia
Last year Trump's Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which
CNN itself called "its toughest line yet against Russia's resurgent nuclear forces."
"In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of
its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia," CNN
reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of
"low-yield" nuclear weapons , which, because they are designed to be more "usable" than
conventional nuclear ordinances,
have been called "the most dangerous weapon ever" by critics of this insane policy. These
weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would
normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.
2.
Arming Ukraine
Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly
pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being
pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was
introduced by
the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was
plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation
against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time
that this policy was put in place.
3. Bombing Syria
Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn't hawkish enough to also do
was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and
April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there
is
no legitimate reason to trust at this point.
4. Staging coup attempts in
Venezuela
Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts
from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day .
Trump's attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that
the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have
killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians .
"Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military
interference look particularly disquieting," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We warn
against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences."
5. Withdrawing
from the INF treaty
For a president who's "soft" on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between
the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to
declare that
"the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war." It appears entirely possible that Trump
will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all
lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START
Treaty which expires in early 2021.
Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these
treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one
way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South
Korea can compete with the U.S. in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to
nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but
the military-industrial complex.
6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
"The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement
designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to
conduct reconnaissance flights over one another's territories," The Wall Street Journalreported last month , adding that the
administration has alleged that "Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while
using its missions to gather intelligence in the US."
Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits
Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:
"US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai
Patrushev said," Sputnik
reports .
"All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and
lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for
the whole humanity," Patrushev said.
"In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological
leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually
pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital
development," he added.
7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
"Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with
the United States to buy Raytheon Co's Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a
major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia," Reuters
reported last year .
8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
The Trump administration has been open about
the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the
nation's oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the
nation's government of that financial resource. Syria's ally Russia strongly opposes this,
accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of "international state banditry".
"In a statement, Russia's defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under
international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not
motivated by genuine security concerns in the region," Reutersreported last
month.
"Therefore Washington's current actions – capturing and maintaining military control
over oil fields in eastern Syria – is, simply put, international state banditry,"
Russia's defense ministry said.
9. Killing Russians in Syria
Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and
hundreds , but whatever the exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian
citizens as part of the Trump administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last
year.
exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump
administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.
10. Tanks in
Estonia
Within weeks of taking office,
Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other
military hardware right up to Russia's border as part of a NATO operation.
"Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security
through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America's
dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention
in Ukraine," the Defense Department said in a statement.
11. War ships in the Black
Sea
12. Sanctions
Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:
"US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress
showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures," CNN reported at
the time . "Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia's interference in the
2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military
operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill's passage drew ire from Moscow -- which responded by
stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country -- all but
crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President
Vladimir Putin had called for."
"A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in
response.
13. More sanctions
"The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the
leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal
conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia," The
New York Timesreported in December
2017 .
14. Still more sanctions
"Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet," reads
a Vice headline from April of last year.
"The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17
senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its
subsidiary, a Russian bank," Vice reports. "While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia's role
in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures
seek to penalize Russia's recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including
its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern
Ukraine."
"The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and
entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea," The Hill
reported in November of last year. "The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and
Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S.
says Russia seized illegally in 2014."
17. Oh hey, more sanctions
"Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to
influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals
associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action
increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a
vessel," reads
a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.
18.
Secondary sanctions
Secondary
sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the
primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The U.S. has leveled sanctions against both
China and
Turkey for
purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is
threatening to do so to India as well.
19. Forcing Russian media to register as
foreign agents
Both RT and
Sputnik have been forced to register as "foreign agents" by the Trump administration. This
classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities
and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic
burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.
20.
Throwing out Russian diplomats
The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of
Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the
U.K.
21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters "to resist Russian aggression"
"US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare
training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian
Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service
officials," Army Times
reported this past July.
"U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states
and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation in 2014," Army Times writes. "A low-level conflict continues to simmer in
eastern Ukraine's Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to
this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty,
national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian
aggression and even occupation."
22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian
Federation
Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.
What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional
U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of
the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.
Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States' commitment to protecting
Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice
ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive
military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially,
Belarus.
24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump's destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement
after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said
it was "deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse
to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", adding that this
administration's actions were "trampling on the norms of international law".
25.
Attacking Russian gas interests
Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to
support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.
"Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said
he's looking at sanctions to block the project he's warned would leave Berlin 'captive' to
Moscow," Bloomberg
reports . "The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany."
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of
dollars in money from Germany" for its gas, Trump told the press.
I could have kept going, but that's my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is
anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn't benefit anyone's
partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain
as can be, but there's a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the
political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative
that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that's
how different narrative is from fact; there's almost no connection. Instead they use a light
sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile
the insane escalations continue.
In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set
off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the
greater the probability of that happening. We're rolling the dice on Armageddon every single
day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.
We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the U.S. and Russia
should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather
diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is
in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.
Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's, in which millions of Ukrainians were shot, raped, beaten and starved out, while
"ethnic Russians" moved in and took over. Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away, he simply
transferred the administration thereof to the Soviet Republic of "the" Ukraine (a term
Ukranians have always decried as a way to make it seem as if Ukraine had always been a part
of the USSR). The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put
them there. That argument is the same one Hitler used as his excuse to annex Poland, and Polk
used to annex Texas. It's true Russia's self-interest (and well-founded fears of foreign
betrayal) have been largely ignored, but it's also disingenuous to ignore their murderous
20th-century imperialism. Just because we're not the good guys doesn't mean they are
either.
anon4d2 , November 20, 2019 at 18:12
Perhaps you forgot that the USSR actions in eastern Europe after WWII were in direct
response to the murder of 20 million Russians in WWII by the Nazi forces, attacking through E
Europe just as Napoleon had done. All US casualties in all its wars are less than five
percent of that, and 95 percent of Nazi division-months were spent in the USSR. On that front
they had nearly all of the casualties and did nearly all of the fighting. No wonder they were
a bit uncomfortable afterward with leaving open the favorite attack route of the west. What
would the US have done if a hundred times its WWII casualties were caused by two invasions
through (for example) Mexico? Would we have left the door open? Such circumstances cannot be
ignored. Starting one's version of history after the world's greatest provocation cannot be
said to clarify the history.
Toby McCrossin , November 21, 2019 at 02:56
"Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's"
Nice alternative facts. Ukraine was one of the original constituent republics of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922!
" Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away"
Huh? Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. You know you can check this stuff yourself
using Google, right?
"The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put them
there."
Right, so the Soviets put the Russians in Crimea in 1783, 139 years before it was in
existence. I guess the Soviets mastered time travel.
I know reading's hard and all but you might wanna try it some time.
Jon Anderholm , November 20, 2019 at 02:22
An essential article by Caitlin .. Thanks so much .
Sam F , November 19, 2019 at 22:56
Another excellent article by Caitlin Johnstone.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 19:59
Given the laws of cause and effect, our nuclear missiles might as well be considered to be
pointed straight at ourselves. Like shooting at one's image in a mirror or joining in a
mutual suicide pact. Sheer insanity.
ranney , November 19, 2019 at 17:26
WONDERFUL article, Caitlin. You are so right! I agree with Alan Ross, you deserve an award
for this, and I hope this gets passed around for a wide readership.
Antonio Costa , November 19, 2019 at 15:14
When elected POTUS you are elected, no matter the campaign rhetoric, to take the reins of
the imperial empire.
Trump did that willingly, in fact to a fault given his "big mouth". He's no more nor less
dangerous than his predecessors. And like them, his is a mass of rhetorical contradictions.
Policy is all that should really matters. It is our only means of identifying some truth.
Trump knows what most here know regarding US invasions and assassinations. What he thinks
about any leader is anyone's guess (including his). For him it's all deal making as if it's
his private Trump Towers Enterprises. But in the end he's playing the chief gangsta role of
his like. (If you've ever listened to Sinatra at the Sands (the full concert), you'll hear
how Trump has mimicked the popular gangsta singer to the last "love ya baby ").
The media is not free. It is an arm of the national security state, with occasional
outages of truth telling, all the more to tell the big lies. It's purpose is to pacify and
repress any rebellions. Since the end of Vietnam it has succeeded. And here we are, never
knowing truth from lie. (I think of Obama as deceitful to the max, while Trump just tells
transparent lies so you don't know when he's actually telling a profound truth.)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."
-- Joseph Goebbels (was a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi
Germany from 1933 to 1945)
Mark Thomason , November 19, 2019 at 14:22
We can go one step further than to say that Trump was reckless toward Russia, "with zero
resistance from either party."
Both parties demanded it. They approved it as "Presidential" whenever he did it, and
attacked him for any effort to be less reckless. They'd done the same to Obama, but Trump
proved weaker and more malleable.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 14:14
Verra nice peroration. I have two objections. One, I doubt that the people of the Donbass
are Russian backed in the same sense that the "moderate" rebel scum in Syria is US backed
with weapons, intelligence, and training but the people of the Donbass are ethnic Russians.
With a steady stream of anti-Russian legislation coming out of Kiev, I imagine they're
looking for an out. Putin is trying to get it for them without starting a war with Ukraine.
The real question that Washington has yet to address is what are they going to do if the
people of Ukraine notice that since they signed on to the neo-liberal dictates of Washington
and Brussels they've become the poorest nation in Europe. I know that there are a number of
Ukrainians who think wistfully of the days when they were part of Mother Russia. But you
never know, the CIA is notorious for its subversion and the Ukrainians might prove to be
spectacularly stupid. After all, they weren't doing badly until they let the US and EU foment
a coup for them.
And, two, "We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the
U.S. and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately." While I agree with the
sentiment, don't bring Russia into this. Everything that Russia has done has been a reaction
to what is usually an American violation of international law. Putin has been very clear that
he wants to back off this cold war but he has also been very clear that we started it and
we're going to have to be the ones to start backing off.
David Hamilton , November 20, 2019 at 02:11
I absolutely agree with your number two reaction to Caitlin's suggestion that Russia and
the U.S. should stop it and establish detente immediately. Everything Russia's leadership is
doing is a reaction to American imperial dares to defy their law violations. They exhibit
extreme and principled restraint to the Orwellian madness emanating from this place.
I think it is important that this be understood. Russians have been used and abused once
before by American largesse in the form of Clinton's puppet's assistance in the rape of the
former Soviet Union by the Harvard-sponsored project. That was the one during the nineties
that privatized national industries and created a dozen neoliberal oligarchs. The cost was a
huge increase in death rate that lowered life expectancy into the 50's from 70 years I think.
Cynical foreign policy, isn't it?
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:16
Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official
control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so
spectacularly is beyond depressing.
Many thanks to Caitlin Johnstone, Consortium News and all the others pushing back against
this system of perception management. I keep repeating it because it rings true. It's like
waking up in the Twilight Zone.
John Neal Spangler , November 19, 2019 at 12:44
She is right. CNN. MSNBC, NYT, and Wapo totally irresponsible. Fox not much better. So
many anti-Russian bigots in US
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:37
Thank you Caitlin. The neoliberals and neocons both desperately want a greatly intensified
cold war with Russia, but want it started by Trump ( because he is personally an
outsider).
This gives the Democrat and Republican donors contracts for the war machine. Ever since
Clinton administration moved NATO to the Russian border, the process has worked for the
oligarchs who control all US policies, foreign and domestic.
The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and
Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise
"Orwellian" media environment.
For anyone who has been waiting for the publication of reporter Udo Ulfkotte's best
selling book (in Germany), a book based on his experience as a well respected journalist
whose reporting was completely compromised by Western intelligence services and business
interests, it is finally available in an English language edition. The English language
edition has been quite obviously suppressed for the last several years and the book was
published in 9 languages BEFORE this English edition became available. It is a book that is
well worth reading to better understand why literally NOTHING written by MSM should be
believed at face value, ever:
See:
I would urge anyone interested in buying this book to get it directly from the publisher-
Progressive Press. Amazon and other mega monopolies are a big part of our problems. Take the
time to make a few extra clicks and boycott Jeff Bezos.
Noah Way , November 19, 2019 at 10:58
The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which
includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a
puppet. Nobel Peace Prize winner oBOMBa bombed 7 countries, overthrew Ukraine's democratic
government, invaded Syria, armed terrorists as proxy armies, authorized drone assassinations,
and bombed a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
The last president to resist the military complex? JFK
Caitlin Johnstone's list points to growing tensions with Russia. Failure of the political
and media establishment to see this makes the task of avoiding world war three all the more
difficult. In the West the end of the Cold War was seen as the dawn of peace. But the Cold
War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we are now in a pre-world war
environment.
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:45
The Democratic Party members have not " missed" anything that Trump has done. They will
not impeach him on those grounds, because they too are guilty of complicity in those war
crimes.
As Pelosi said regarding impeaching GWB for the torture program or invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan " it's off the table". Because she was complicit.
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:23
Russia did not illegally annex Crimea. A referendum was held and 90% of the voters voted
to rejoin Russia. Most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and speak Russian. They were
understandably scared to death of what their fate would be under the rule of the fascists the
US installed in Ukraine.
And frankly, Russia had every right to protect its only warm water port in Sevastopol that
would have been taken over by NATO if Crimea had remained part of Ukraine. Too many Americans
have been indoctrinated in the belief that Russia has no legitimate self interest to
defend.
michael , November 19, 2019 at 18:22
In addition to what Lois Gagnon points out, you have to realize that the re-patriation of
Crimea to Russia in March 2014 was the direct result of Obama, Biden, Nuland et al
overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, in the Maidan coup
in February, 2014, and replacing him with a neoNAZI regime. Russian speech was outlawed,
which has been the language of the majority of Crimea since Catherine the Great.
The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the
Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita
median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from
the US.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 20:25
Crimeans have an absolute right of self-determination as a fundamental human right under
established international law, just as the Kosovars did when we were supporting the breakup
of Serbia when Clinton was president. Ethnic Russians voted in an overwhelming majority in a
free and fair plebiscite to rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for centuries, because
the neo-Nazi US coup government allied with Azov battalions in Kyiv terrified them and they
wanted nothing further to do with them. Crimea had every right to decide. Russia did nothing
to interfere, not a bullet was fired. Russia's troops were already stationed in Crimea by
treaty and did not invade. Russia warned NATO against the Kosovo precedent that it would come
back to bite them someday, and it was ignored. NATO is unhappy because it was denied an
illegitimate geostrategic advantage they thought they would gain. Crimea is happy, so what's
the problem?
DH Fabian , November 19, 2019 at 21:08
"We," who? Regardless, the issues you raise can't be understood outside of their
historical context, and Americans never try to understand the world within that historical
context.
anon , November 19, 2019 at 22:54
Crimea was part of Russia for roughly 200 years before the USSR premier (Kruschev?) gave
it to Ukraine, although its inhabitants were nearly all of Russian heritage and language,
like E Ukraine. So not surprising that they wanted to go back to being part of Russia.
dean 1000 , November 20, 2019 at 19:26
Couldn't agree more Lois Gagnon. Washington did an illegal coup. Russia did a legal
annexation.
btw – The Autonomous Republic of Sevastopol on SW Crimea is no longer the only
ice-free port of the Russian Navy. Kaliningrad (on the Baltic sea) has been part of Russia
since 1945. Its deep ice-free harbor is the home port of Russia's Baltic fleet according to
the 2012 world book DVD.
Good one Caitlin. Again
jdd , November 19, 2019 at 09:51
This article properly puts to rest the absurd notion that President Trump is a "tool of
Putin, " and correctly notes that it has created a potentially disastrous situation.
However,
let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Anglo/American led forces arrayed
against Trump from the moment he announced his intention to run on a platform of "getting
along" with Russia and joining with Putin to defeat ISIS.
Failing impeachment, from the
attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of
Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort
to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of
the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the
current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish
testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment.
Nick , November 19, 2019 at 16:50
Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until
after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later.
Alan Ross , November 19, 2019 at 09:47
This article alone deserves an award for public service. And in a more sensibly run world
Caitlin Johnstone would have gotten at least fifty such awards for past articles.
"... if this is to inform us that Kerry is a duplicitous weasel,then id guess this has been known for at least a decade ..."
"... He is just a puppet of some big families and interest groups. He is their voice. He is maybe good in tactics but not in strategy. That's why he made a faulty assumption in Syria. ..."
"... I can't remember exactly what, but I noticed he was inconsistent in his bullcrapping. So he wanted an election, and democracy – gotta mouth 'democracy' -and he didn't. ..."
"... He of course expected to 'negotiate' with Assad, assuming that after Assad tasted fire he'd get lost, but that didn't go well when the evilest people around, the Russians, who just don't care about international law, were invited in to Syria, lol, because the law is the law. He was all over the place! ..."
"... Meanwhile, How many different scholars and politicians declaim loudly that the US should forget about international law?, starting with Michael Glennon. ..."
"... Those are Kerry's words. Among other things of interest, the recording also shows that the establishment actually do mouth their lies even to themselves, perhaps as a means of disciplining their own ranks. It's institutionalized schizophrenia. ..."
"... It is not a "free and fair" election without US interference! ..."
"... "Democracy has some virtues, folks" – so sayeth the old Bonesman. Enjoy your retirement , John. ..."
On Wednesday, Wikileaks released new evidence of US President-elect On Wednesday, Wikileaks
released new evidence of US President-elect
Donald Trump 's assertion
that Barack Obama was the founder of ISIS – a leaked audio of US Secretary of State John
Kerry's meeting with members of the Syrian opposition at the Dutch Mission of the UN on
September 22.
The audio also is an evidence of the fact that mainstream media colluded with the
Obama's administration in order to push the narrative for regime change in Syria, hiding the
truth about arming and funding ISIS by the US, as it exposed a 35 minute conversation that was
omitted by CNN.
Kerry admits that the primary goal of the
Obama's administration in Syria was regime change and the removal of Syrian President Bahar
al-Assad, as well as that
Washington
didn't calculate that Assad would turn to Russia for help.
In order to achieve this goal, the
White House allowed the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group to rise. The Obama's administration
hoped that growing power of the IS in Syria would force Assad to search for a diplomatic
solution on US terms, forcing him to cede power. In its turn, in order to achieve these two
goals, Washington intentionally armed members of the terrorist group and even attacked a In
order to achieve this goal, the White House allowed the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group to
rise.
The Obama's administration hoped that growing power of the IS in
Syria would force Assad to search for a diplomatic solution on US terms, forcing him to cede
power. In its turn, in order to achieve these two goals, Washington intentionally armed members
of the terrorist group and even attacked a
Syrian
government military convoy, trying to stop a strategic attack on the IS, killing 80 Syrian
soldiers.
According to Wikileaks, "the audio gives a glimpse into what goes on outside
official meetings. Note that it represents the US narrative and not necessarily the entire true
narrative." Earlier the audio was published by the "And we know that this was growing, we were
watching, we saw that DAESH [the IS] was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was
threatened," Kerry said during the meeting.
. "(We)
thought, however," he continued to say, "We could probably manage that Assad might then
negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him." "I lost the argument for
use of force in Syria," Kerry concluded.
Note that it represents the US narrative and not
necessarily the entire true narrative." Earlier the audio was published by the "I lost the
argument for use of force in Syria," Kerry concluded.
Earlier the audio was published by the
New York Times and CNN,
however, the both outlets chose only some its part, reporting on certain aspects, and omitted
the most damning comments made by Kerry. In fact, they tried to hide the statements that would
allow public to understand what has actually taken place in Syria.
The full audio has never
been published by the New York Times; the outlet released only selected snippets. The full
audio has never been published by the New York Times; the outlet released only selected
snippets. The full audio has never been published by the New York Times; the outlet released
only selected snippets.
Mickey
What a surprise!!
Don Rhudy
We know by observation and by reports from the sailors who served with Kerry on a Swiftboat
that Kerry is a coward, liar, and enemy of the United States of America. He faked three
Purple hearts to leave Swiftboat service early and return to the states, and he lied to the
U.S. Congress while under oath. He belongs in Federal Prison.
JamesH
US Secretary of State John Kerry: "The problem is we in the US care about international law
and Russia does not. This is the reason why we can't directly attack Assad forces.
The only
way we can directly intervene is if we have a UN Security Council resolution, or if our
forces are under attack by theirs, or if we are invited by the LEGITIMATE regime well not
saying here they're "legitimate" ok, Assad's regime. The Russians were invited in and we're
not."
The U.S. knows their presence in Syria is illegal
Kerry contradicts himself when he said that Russia does not care about international law when
fact is Russia is legally allowed to operate in Syria at the invitation of the "legitimate"
Syrian regime (admittedly, his tongue slipped at that point)
Cynthia Banks
You are so right and it has been proven, Kerry and Hillary are the ones who armed ISIS a d
ISIS was the one doing the gas attacks. Assad has the right to his nation and Kerry promised
these rebels they could win and they are only seventeen percent of the populace. The people
of Syria support Assad. It was a civil uprising we had no right to get involved in. But as we
learned the US was trying to take over seven nations in seven years.
Its not about Syrian regime change, US also wanted to topple Shiite Iraqi Government through
ISIS to install Sunni/Wahhabi regime to counter the Tehran influences in Iraq.
doug
I had come to the conclusion many years ago that democrats can never be trusted. All the do
is lie and plot and cheat and cast aspersions and smears on everyone who disagrees with them.
The smears are usually them trying to smear others with lacks in character that almost always
apply to themselves. This news is nothing new. Glenn Beck for just one example has claimed
this for years. He has maintained from the fall of Libya and the attack in Benghazzi that it
was all about moving arms to Syria to arm and bolster ISIS.
Barbara
The reason why we can no longer trust the Democrats is because they have been infiltrated by
the Communist party.
Barbara
Also remember this, the war criminals Rumsfeld and Chaney went to Syria to organize and start
pumping out the Syrian oil. They just couldn't wait to get their hands on it. It's about the
oil.
George Cornell
And even that wasn't enough to make honest people out of them.
Inerich
Wrong. No UN resolution when Trump attacked 2 Russian chemical weapons bases in Syria. As
Commander in Chief, President Trump made the decision to bomb and destroy.
Cynthia Banks
You can't trust the RINO's either. Bush got us into this and I voted for him twice.
https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
JDD
PUT him in a rioom with families of the victims of 911. Lock the door.
pavlovscat7
Put him in a room with the families of Sandy Hook and he'd have to take out his wallet again.
D3F1ANT
None of this evidence matters. Look at what happened with Hillary and the proof of her MYRIAD
crimes. Someone could post a video a Democrat breaking the law and it wouldn't matter. Lynch
and Comey and their minions have proven that power-brokers on the Left are simply beyond the
reach of the "long-arm" of the Law.
antirepublocrat
Treason.
Lumpy Gravy
CNN deleted the audio at all, explaining this with the request of
some of the participants out of concern for their personal safety.
So, who then took part in the meeting at the Dutch UN mission? What are the names and the
whereabouts of these so called Syrian opposition types? What are the names of the colluding
Dutch mission staff? Seeing that none them ever cared in the least about the safety of the
Syrian people, why should anyone care for their personal safety? With hundreds of thousands
dead, millions of refugees or internally displaced and the country in ruins these people have
a lot to answer for. I do hope that they and the hyena who over the past five years so
eagerly promoted this mayhem in the western media will be held to account for their crimes at
some point.
bill
if this is to inform us that Kerry is a duplicitous weasel,then id guess this has been known
for at least a decade
Sam
He is just a puppet of some big families and interest groups. He is their voice. He is maybe
good in tactics but not in strategy. That's why he made a faulty assumption in Syria.
I
really hope that all the responsibles of casualties of civilians and innocent people will
face an international tribunal or face the direct cosmic judgement. They betrayed all the
secular and tolerant forces in the Middle East by creating a religious confusion. Just to
remove Assad? What about the feudal system in Saudia, Qatar (slavery, stoning, beheading )?
Where are the Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Who voted democratically for all those
wars in the US? What is the power of Congress ? Who is going to bring back or payback
taxpayers money? Poverty is rising in the US and the number of homeless people becomes
astronomical.
Ronald Smith
A decade? I've known since he was in Vietnam. Him an John McCain we're both traitors to our
country.
I hope someone, at some point, will be able to provide a transcript. It was a bit hard to
follow, hard as I did. The women talked fast and maybe the accent didn't help.
The audio, which gives us a glimpse into the pathology of politicians who sell their souls
for gain and have to do verbal contortions, speaking in code even to each other (lest
somebody want to stab someone else in the back), in order to communicate. There was so much
vileness attached to Kerry's inconsitent comments.
BigB
Hear hear! I got most of the slime coming from Kerry (and the 2nd American?) – but the
female and particularly the male opposition rep – I couldn't quite pick.
I did get the bit when she had a meltdown when Kerry suggested an open election (because the
US is big on free and fair elections – including their own as we have just seen.)
Apparently the Syrian opposition aren't that keen on them either.
Do I take it from this that the Americans think that if the 'diaspora' is included in the
vote, that there are enough Syrians abroad inculcated by western propaganda to ouster Assad?
Or will that just blowback in their face?
BTW – as most regular commenters are well aware – the recent 2014 Syrian election
was completely 'free and fair' – certainly by American standards. Assad won by a
landslide.
Yes, I think that you have that right. Kerry is keen on an American managed election (a la
Haiti or Honduras) and must believe that the diaspora is sufficiently bamboozled for that to
go swimmingly.
BigB
Kerry said that Assad was worried by the prospect of an election. I wonder where he gets his
intel from – WaPo or the CIA?
Mind you, that's a single-source these days!
I can't remember exactly what, but I noticed he was inconsistent in his bullcrapping. So he
wanted an election, and democracy – gotta mouth 'democracy' -and he didn't.
He of
course expected to 'negotiate' with Assad, assuming that after Assad tasted fire he'd get
lost, but that didn't go well when the evilest people around, the Russians, who just don't
care about international law, were invited in to Syria, lol, because the law is the law. He
was all over the place!
Meanwhile, How many different scholars and politicians declaim loudly
that the US should forget about international law?, starting with Michael Glennon.
Pierre-henri Bredontiot
"the Russians, who just don't care about international law, "
How can you say such a thing?
Only Russians are allowed to fight in Syria. Assad has been choosed by his people, and call
Russia for help, nobody else.
No country but Russia is allowed to put a foot in Syria: that is International Right. That is
ONU's law.
USA, GB, France, Qatar, South Arabia, THEY don't care about international law.
Please excuse my bad language, I'm French. But you understand what I mean.
Those are Kerry's words. Among other things of interest, the recording also shows that the
establishment actually do mouth their lies even to themselves, perhaps as a means of
disciplining their own ranks. It's institutionalized schizophrenia.
Ron
Amen. Kerry babbled about 'all the people in the camps" voting. Yeah, we know how 'free and
fair' the voting will be in Erdogan's camps! -- And we know -- and these hotel-dwelling
shysters know -- how many Syrian missions were closed, as in the US, Australia and many other
countries -- or were denied allowing voting, because they knew bloody well who ex-pat Syrians
would vote for! Over a million Syrian refugees in Lebanon trekked many miles, though
Hariri-occupied salafist ghettos, to vote in 2014, so many that there was chaos finding
enough voting slips. And ALL for Assad!
The tone of this cabal is all. It's losers, and so they will remain.
bevin
"Do I take it from this that the Americans think that if the 'diaspora' is included in the
vote, that there are enough Syrians abroad inculcated by western propaganda to ouster
Assad?"
He was obviously hinting that the opposition need not worry about the 'free and fair' bit.
After all we have seen, in Haiti most clearly, what they will do to ensure that the people
they don't want lose. In Haiti Aristide- a shoo-in- was not allowed to compete. In Yemen only
one (US/Saudi approved) name was allowed on the ballot for President. In Iraq no Socialists
were allowed to run. In Ukraine the Communist Party was banned. The beauty if the diaspora
option is that it would allow ballot boxes to be stuffed in every city in Europe and Arabia,
away from the supervision of the election authorities.
But poor old Kerry's audience didn't understand him-they are afraid he really believes in
'democracy'. They probably think that they are smarter than him and have cheated him by
pretending to subscribe to democracy!
The U.S. Government Supplied ISIS' Iconic Pickup Trucks
Posted on October 12, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
U.S. counter-terror officials have launched an investigation into how ISIS got so many of
those identical Toyota pickup trucks which they use in their convoys.
They don't have to look very far
The Spectator reported last year:
The [Toyota] Hilux [pics] is light, fast, manoeuvrable and all but indestructible ('bomb-proof' might not, in this instance, be a happy usage). The weapons experts Jane's claimed for the Hilux a similar significance to the longbows of Agincourt or the Huey choppers of Nam.
A US Army Ranger said the Toyota sure 'kicks the hell out of a Humvee' (referring to the clumsy and over-sized High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle made by AM General).
The fact is the Toyotas were supplied by the US government to the Al Nusra Front as
'non-lethal aid' then 'acquired' by ISIS. Al Nusra Front is literally Al Qaeda.
The US govt via the CIA provided Ford F250 in their thousands to "liberation" movements in
Africa back in the 70's.
Brian Harry, Australia
So, the U.S. taxpayers paid for the vehicles. No wonder the USA's National Debt is heading
towards $19 TRILLION. There seems to be no end to the stupidity in America, giving Israel
$3BILLION/year, fighting Israel's wars, and supplying their mercenaries, while the debts keep
piling higher???
Not to mention sacrificing young American soldiers etc.
Is it any wonder that the people who put Obama in the White House(to act as their stooge) are
now in panic mode as Trump readies for the White House, having thumbed his nose at them(by
threatening to "Drain the Swamp"). Despite the USA's image as "The most powerful nation on
Earth", the people in charge now find themselves in a very weak position, and in danger of
loosing control. Trump will need to watch his back during his term as President, the people
behind the façade of Freedom and Democracy will do ANYTHING to hold their grip on
power.
Sav
Wondering if John Hinckley Jr's release was for a reason 🙂
BigB
LMFAO – I expect he'll be having dinner with the Bush family soon! That cut throat
gesture by the old man HW was a promise – not a threat!
Brian Harry, Australia
Sav. Good comment, but, I'm sure the CIA have a ready supply of 'guns for hire' ..
Assad was going to cut a deal with Russia regarding the Russian pipeline through Syria, Iran
and on to China. No way could the US allow this to happen. How to destroy Assad's plan?
Deploy murderous nutters and pretend it was all Assad's own fault with a prepared false
narrative which the complicit MSM would spoon feed their public with. Simple.
Enter Russia's
Putin with the most sophisticated and advanced military force in the world, add
Hezbollah/Iran and China and watch the carnage the US and it's backers have unleashed.
Simple, effective, murderous and criminal.
How much more evidence does one need these days to have these people tried for crimes against
humanity
Hers some historical facts.
Germany in the 30's invaded Czechoslovakia
US and Nato bombed Yugoslavia in the 90's
Germany invaded Poland in the late 30's
US and Nato bombed and invaded Afghanistan in 2001
Germany and Italy bombed Spain in the 30's
Us and nato bombed Iraq in the first Gulf war in 1991
Germany invade France and western europe in the 40's
US and Nato have the biggest military buildup on Russians border since the second world
war
Germany in 42 initiate operation barbarossa and invade the USSR
... ... ...
Using critical thinking and historical analysis.
The difference in time is circa 70 years . All we hear in the west is Russian aggression ,
Chinese aggression, Iranian aggression. The parody is amazing .
FREEDOM JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY IS LOOKING LIKE FASCISM THE FASCIST WAY.
The washington consensus is loosing badly and just like most bullies is behaving badly and
here where the danger lies. These establishment characters whom ever they may be ( mind u
most of my fellow bloggers know full well whom they r) r dying for a war .
Seeing that their
terrorist islamaphobic narrative can only carry so much destruction we need to really muddy
the waters with a Russia whom historically speaking has been such a bogie man for the west
going back to Peter the Great.
Next time, just shoot the plane down. You can always claim afterward that it was a mistake
and you were shooting at something else, or cleaning the missile launcher and it went off;
something like that. It works great for the Israelis.
"Thirteen drones moved according to common combat battle deployment, operated by a single
crew. During all this time the American Poseidon-8 reconnaissance plane patrolled the
Mediterranean Sea area for eight hours," he noted. Read also Three layers of Russian air defense at Hmeymim air base in
Syria When the drones met with the electronic countermeasures of the Russian systems, they
switched to a manual guidance mode, he said. "Manual guidance is carried out not by some
villagers, but by the Poseidon-8, which has modern equipment. It undertook manual control," the
deputy defense minister noted.
"When these 13 drones faced our electronic warfare screen, they moved away to some distance,
received the corresponding orders and began to be operated out of space and receiving help in
finding the so-called holes through which they started penetrating. Then they were destroyed,"
Fomin reported.
"This should be stopped as well: in order to avoid fighting with the high-technology weapons
of terrorists and highly-equipped terrorists it is necessary to stop supplying them with
equipment," the deputy defense minister concluded.
The Russian Defense Ministry earlier said that on January 6 militants in Syria first
massively used drones in the attack on the Russian Hmeymim airbase and the Russian naval base
in Tartus. The attack was successfully repelled: seven drones were downed, and control over six
drones was gained through electronic warfare systems. The Russian Defense Ministry stressed
that the solutions used by the militants could be received only from a technologically advanced
country and warned about the danger of repeating such attacks in any country of the
world.
The forum
The eighth Beijing Xiangshan Forum on security will run until October 26 in Beijing. It was
organized by the Chinese Ministry of Defense, China Association for Military Science (CAMS) and
China Institute for International Strategic Studies (CIISS). Representatives for defense
ministries, armed forces and international organizations, as well as former military officials,
politicians and scientists from 79 countries are taking part in the forum.
"... But what happens when those "standards of excellence" lead to 20 years of fighting unwinnable wars on the peripheries of the planet? When do habits and practices turn into mental stagnation? ..."
"... You know when it comes to generals, whether they're Marines, whether they're Army, whether they're Mattis who's supposedly this "warrior monk," these guys talk tactics and then claim it's strategy. What they consider to be strategic thinking really is just tactical thinking on a broad scale . I think the biggest problem with all the four-star generals are they're "how" thinkers not "if" thinkers. ..."
"... This inability of America's elites (including its generals) to grapple with strategic concepts is a result of the United States' post-Cold War unipolar moment. When there's only one superpower, geopolitics and the need for international balancing fall by the wayside. ..."
"... Mattis, like virtually all of his four-star peers, is a reactionary, fighting every day against the forces of change in modern warfare ..."
"... "[W]hen you shave it all down, his problem with being the epitome of establishment Washington is that he sees the alliance as the end, not as a means to an end," says Davis. "The means should be to the end of improving American security and supporting our interests." ..."
"... "By clinging to unsustainable military solutions from the distant past, he has condemned future generations of soldiers and marines to repeat disasters like Pickett's Charge," says Macgregor. ..."
Last week, The Wall Street Journal published a lengthy
op-ed written by former secretary of defense James Mattis, his first public statement since
his resignation in December. The article is adopted from his forthcoming book, Call Sign
Chaos: Learning to Lead , out this week.
The former Pentagon chief opens a window into his decision making process, explaining that
accepting President Trump's nomination was part of his lifelong devotion to public service:
"When the president asks you to do something, you don't play Hamlet on the wall, wringing your
hands. So long as you are prepared, you say yes." Mattis's two years at DoD capped off 44 years
in the Marine Corps, where he gained a popular following as a tough and scholarly leader.
Mattis received widespread praise from the foreign policy establishment when he resigned in
protest over President Trump's directive for a full U.S. military withdrawal from Syria and a
partial withdrawal from Afghanistan. "When my concrete solutions and strategic advice,
especially keeping faith with our allies, no longer resonated, it was time to resign, despite
the limitless joy I felt serving alongside our troops in defense of our Constitution," he
writes.
But did Mattis really offer "concrete solutions and strategic advice" regarding America's
two decades of endless war? spoke with four military experts, all veterans, who painted a very
different picture of the man called "Mad Dog."
"I think over time, in General Mattis's case a little over 40 years, if you spend that many
years in an institution, it is extremely hard not to get institutionalized," says Gil
Barndollar, military fellow-in-residence at the Catholic University of America's Center for the
Study of Statesmanship. Barndollar served as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps and
deployed twice to Afghanistan. "In my experiences, there are not too many iconoclasts or really
outside-the-box people in the higher ranks of the U.S. military."
It's just that sort of institutionalized thinking that makes the political establishment
love Mattis. "[A] person with an institutional mind-set has a deep reverence for the
organization he has joined and how it was built by those who came before. He understands that
institutions pass down certain habits, practices and standards of excellence," wrote David
Brooks in a hagiographic New York Timescolumn .
But what happens when those "standards of excellence" lead to 20 years of fighting
unwinnable wars on the peripheries of the planet? When do habits and practices turn into mental
stagnation?
"The problem is, from at least the one-star the whole way through, for the last two decades,
you've seen them do nothing but just repeat the status quo over and over," observes Lieutenant
Colonel Daniel L. Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, who served 21 years in the U.S.
Army and deployed four times to Iraq and Afghanistan. "I mean every single general that was in
charge of Afghanistan said almost the same boilerplate thing every time they came in (which was
nearly one a year). You see the same results, nothing changed."
"And if those guys took someone from a major to a two-star general, we'd probably have a lot
of better outcomes," he adds.
Major Danny Sjursen, who served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, agrees:
You know when it comes to generals, whether they're Marines, whether they're Army, whether
they're Mattis who's supposedly this "warrior monk," these guys talk tactics and then claim
it's strategy. What they consider to be strategic thinking really is just tactical thinking
on a broad scale . I think the biggest problem with all the four-star generals are they're
"how" thinkers not "if" thinkers.
Barndollar says: "The vast majority of military leaders, up to and including generals at the
three-, four-star level, are not operating at the strategic level, in terms of what that word
means in military doctrine. They're not operating at the level of massive nation-state
resources and alliances and things like that. They're at the operational level or often even at
the tactical level."
This inability of America's elites (including its generals) to grapple with strategic
concepts is a result of the United States' post-Cold War unipolar moment. When there's only one
superpower, geopolitics and the need for international balancing fall by the wayside.
The only component of national security policy Mattis discusses in his op-ed is America's
system of alliances, which he believes is the key to our preeminence on the world stage.
"Returning to a strategic stance that includes the interests of as many nations as we can make
common cause with, we can better deal with this imperfect world we occupy together," he
writes.
"Mattis, like virtually all of his four-star peers, is a reactionary, fighting every day
against the forces of change in modern warfare," counters Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who served
28 years in the U.S. Army. "He lives in denial of the technological breakthroughs that make the
World War II force structure (that he as SecDef insisted on funding) an expensive tribute to
the past."
Mattis muses that the Department of Defense "budget [is] larger than the GDPs of all but two
dozen countries." Yet having acknowledged that disparity, how can such underpowered foreign
nations possibly contribute to American security?
"He has that line in there about bringing as many guns as possible to a gun fight. What are
those guns?" asked Barndollar. For example, the British Royal Navy is the United States' most
significant allied naval force. But the United Kingdom has
only seven vessels stationed in the Persian Gulf and they're "stretched to the absolute
limit to do that."
"Our problem has been double-edged," says Davis of America's reliance on others. "On the one
hand, we try to bludgeon a lot of our allies to do what we want irrespective of their interests
as an asset. And then simultaneously, especially in previous administrations, we've almost gone
too far [in] the other direction: 'we'll subordinate our interests for yours.'"
"[W]hen you shave it all down, his problem with being the epitome of establishment
Washington is that he sees the alliance as the end, not as a means to an end," says Davis. "The
means should be to the end of improving American security and supporting our interests."
Sjursen says:
Mattis's view is the old Einstein adage: "doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a different result is the definition of insanity." Well that's all he's proposed.
He has no new or creative solutions. For him, it's stay the course, more of the same, stay in
place, fight the terrorists, maintain the illegitimate and corrupt governments that we back.
That's what he's been talking about for 18 years. It's all the same interventionist dogma
that's failed us over and over again since September 12, 2001.
"In the two years he was in office, what did he do that changed anything? He was a caretaker
of the status quo. That's the bottom line," says Davis, adding, "you need somebody in that job
especially that is willing to take some chances and some risk and is willing to honestly look
at 18 consecutive years of failure and say, 'We're not doing that anymore. We're going to do
something different.' And that just never happened."
Barndollar is more generous in his estimation of Mattis: "He needs to be lauded for standing
for his principles, ultimately walking away when he decided he could no longer execute U.S.
national security policy. I give him all the credit for that, for doing it I think in a
relatively good manner, and for trying to do his best to stay above the fray and refuse to be
dragged in at a partisan level to this point."
Mattis ends his Wall Street Journal op-ed by recounting a vignette from the 2010
Battle of Marjah, where he spoke with two soldiers on the front lines and in good cheer. But
his story didn't sit well with Sjursen, who says it encapsulates Mattis' inability to ask the
bigger questions: "He never talks about how those charming soldiers with the can-do attitude
maybe shouldn't have been there at all. Maybe the mission that they were asked to do was
ill-informed, ill-advised, and potentially unwinnable."
All this suggests that a fair evaluation of Mattis is as a soldier who is intelligent but
unoriginal. A homegrown patriot, but one who'd like to plant the Stars and Stripes in Central
Asia forever. A public servant, but one who would rather resign than serve the cause of
restraint.
"By clinging to unsustainable military solutions from the distant past, he has condemned
future generations of soldiers and marines to repeat disasters like Pickett's Charge," says
Macgregor.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter for The National Interest .Follow him on
Twitter@HunterDeRensis
.
>Problem then is, Russia does not care that much about nominal GDP and even about PPP
GDP
GDP does matter, lowering the GDP of certain country weakens the country. Other factors
matter too, such as demographics or landmass and natural resources.
>targetting EU and Russia economically was perhaps a mis-aiming
I would not call it misaiming, Europe has one of the largest economies in the world and
the Euro is the second most important currency in the World. As long as Russia and the EU
attack each other - it is a win for the US.
>Also, take a single line - "congress obliges Trump to enlist russian officials for
sanctions"
It is not simply Congress, the Trump Admin is hawkish on Russia by itself. Pompeo and
Bolton are anti-russian and were instrumental in the US leaving the INF. The pressure against
Nord Sream is greater than during the Obama Admin, Second Fleet was activated for containing
Russia, a russian consulate was captured in pretty brutal manner, etc. Recently, another set
of sanctions were enacted by the Trump Admin.
>Estimations are just that, estimations. Guesses into the future mixed with
propaganda.
I'm not dismissive of growth estimates and forecasts, this is the job of various
companies, organisations and universities. Overall things could be predicted roughly, for
example via demographics, median age of population, labour force growth, total factor
productivity. The OECD for example is an international organisation working on such
forecasts. They can get the rough shapes of growth patterns right - for example it is pretty
clear that India or China would be growing faster than, let say, Germany or the US. And this
is what their forecasts show. So these are not guestimates.
>Pro-American Modi in power of India was a definite win for USA. But i do not think
Trump did it in 2016. Such events are grown for years and years of undercover works.
This is not what i had in mind. While this is true, you did not take into account the
prefidy of the US Government, which is working to retard indian economic growth via tarrifs
and by trying to remove the WTO perks for developing countries. Even when Modi is frendly to
the US, this is still not enough, because the growth of Asia, including India, threatens the
dollar.
>Well, maybe. However does it boost much US the hegemon position today?
Iranian economy was booming after the JCPOA was signed. If the Plan remained, Iran would
be stronger than today. The whole point is to retard iranian economic growth, which would be
far stronger without the sanctions.
>Also notice how this pushes Iran back to Russian bucket
Even back in 2015, Iran did not stop being an israeli adversary, which means that the US
would have targeted it one way or another. Plus the US was not in position to gain much from
the iranian market, due to their still strained relations caused by the israeli lobby in the
US, which caused all types of sabotage in the Iran - US trade relations, the process of
removal of sanctions, etc. A big beneficiary from the JCPOA was the EU, and the main losses
from the sactions (outside from Iran) were for the EU again. Retarding the EU economy via
blocking its trade with Iran (or Russia) is a benefit for the US.
>Venezueala in deep recession. True, and this is again fitting the isolationist bill,
to a degree.True, and this is again fitting the isolationist bill, to a degree.
This isn't about isolationism, but about retarding the economy of the rest of the world,
and especially of still uncontrolled countries. The point is to preserve the share of
relative power the US has, or to slow down its decline as much as possible.
>Now Venezuela can adjust to the new brave world
The point is that Venezuela would be growing far faster without sanctions, thus the US is
weakening the independent multipolar world and slowing down its rise.
>Did it really made USA position better in 2018 than it was in 2014?
Obviously. Venezuela today, vis a vis the US, is weaker in relative power terms than in
2014. For the US its better to wreck Venezuela's economy than to allow it to flourish and
expand its influence.
>Basically turning EU elites against USA and splitting "Western Hegemony" into rivaling
factions.
They are not turning them against the US, that's the point. Europe is too much of a puppet
of the US. The US causes various conficts on Europe's perifery in order to turn it against
Russia and make it dependent on itself. Divide and Rule.
>would it be much difference for, say, Russia or China or Iran, whether USD or EUR
Yes, Europe is less hawkish than the US overall. If it was up to Europe JCPOA will still
be here and there would be no trade wars with China.
>Also, didn't he kind of forced EU elites into Chinese OBOR camp
Its more about economic weakness. Those in Europe with poor economy signed up for BRI -
such as eastern Europe and Italy. The big 3 - Germany, France and the UK refuse to join BRI
(which is different than AIIB) as of now. I do not see greater western european - China
cooperation today than before 5 years. The EU commission declared China a european rival.
>EU was in with US in looting Libya, EU was in with US in looting Serbia, now US calls
for EU to join in "patrolling" Persian Gulf and response is... like the one about invading
Venezuela. Hegemon became stronger?
The iranian issue has always been a red card for Europe as it fears a really big war in
the Gulf. There is nothing new in that. If you are going to talk about "now", the EU did join
the US against Syria, its sanctions against Syria still remain, and it does support removing
Maduro from power. It did put sanctions against Venezuela, although not at the same level as
the US. It is no friend of the Maduro Government.
>And i wish to see more of those wars not less. Won't you?
Currently the result of them is weakeing multipolarity by retarding growth in most of the
world. They have negative impact on the global economy.
>EU is the power, that took part in creating narco-haven in Kosovo, murdering children
of Iraq, building sex slaves markets in Libya, destroying what was left of democracy in
Ukraine. EU power is diminishing? Let it crash and burn if you ask me.
Yes, but the US does not want to crush and burn the EU, it simply wants to make it weak
and dependent on itself. A colony.
>Wasn't in 2012 Turkey part of Hegemon entourage neck-deep in bloody ISIS affair?
The more players around, the better. Strong Turkey will be more independent from the US,
the US understand that, this is why it want weak Turkey
>Trump could smash Turkey and instate Kudistan.
Trump can not directly smash Turkey, the moment an attempt like this is made is the moment
Turkey will invite Russia and China into the country. Rather, a hybrid war is being waged on
Turkey, with the aim of weakening Erdogan and replacing him with a reliable puppet.
> Overall situation - the US share in the world economy is declining at slower rates
than before Won't this mean Trump's economic policy is if limited success?
No. There is nothing better than this that could be done to stop the US relative decline,
it depends on the cards one has to play. Economic convergence process and technological
diffusion, driven by globalisation, means that it is impossible the fully stop the rise of
the developing world. But if the US did not react like it reacted, and just stayed on its
hands, i think its power would have been gone in 2 - 3 years.
>Uni-polarity is not about economic growth.
It is also about the economy and growth. You can't have unipolarity if you don't have the
largest economic, as well as military power. One needs to have the largest economy to rule
the world (among other things), or they will fail. You can't have it without the dollar
dominance as well.
ALAFF continues to post the translation of chapters from the newest book of Russian
diplomat Maria Khodynskaya-Golenischeva. The first part of the translation (as well as
information about the book and other details) can be read here
... ... ...
The deliberate distancing of the Russian side from the actions of the Syrian government was
manifested not only in this, but also, for example, in the unwillingness of Moscow -- the
co-chair of the Ceasefire Task Force and Humanitarian Access International Syria Support Group
-- to bear full responsibility for the behavior of Damascus in the area of adherence to the
cessation of hostilities and to ensure humanitarian access. The thesis regularly voiced by the
Russian leadership that "Moscow does not hold on to B. Assad" (2012) [9] and Russia "does not
support B. Assad" (2017) [10] contained only a small share of guile.
It makes no sense to deny that, in parallel with being drawn into the conflict, Russia and
the government of B. Assad naturally increased their cooperation, which means that relations
were gradually getting closer and closer. However, if for B. Assad and his entourage, the
involvement of Moscow in the conflict on the side of Damascus was directly related to the issue
of political survival, for Russia -- and the author was personally convinced of this,
interacting with the Syrian leadership -- the SAR became an ally largely due to circumstances.
If at the global level Russia believed that it was pursuing a policy of giving the world system
greater justice through strengthening the foundations of international humanitarian law and
updating the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, then
translated into Russian-Syrian relations for Moscow this meant preventing the regime from
falling. Official Damascus has often used this in attempts to "bind" the Russian side closer to
itself.
Thus, it is futile and harmful to look for elements of foreign policy intercession in the
motives of the Russian line [on Syria], because it can distract from the definition of the
driving forces and understanding of the essential content of Russia's policy on the Syrian
"dossier". The desire to establish a fair world order (which, from the point of view of the
Russian leadership, meant returning closer to the post-war principles of international
relations) was dictated not only by anxiety over the fate of the Middle East. And the desire to
avoid negative security consequences, which are becoming a consequence of the destabilization
of the region, played an important but not the key role.
1.3. Motivation of Moscow's policy on the Syrian direction
Let's look at the complex of considerations that formed the line of Moscow in the Syrian
direction.
The first group is internal-local considerations. In their center is to prevent
fragmentation and weakening of the post-Soviet space and Russia itself. Hence, a permanent
emphasis on the inadmissibility of an unconstitutional change of power in the SAR, the
importance of building the process of resolving the crisis in Syria in the framework of the
norms of international law enshrined in the UN Charter. This, however, was achieved without
dispersion of resources and with an eye on internal public opinion. This explains Moscow's
unwillingness to get too deeply involved in the Syrian conflict, in particular, to send a
ground force troops to the SAR, which threatened a repetition of the Afghan (USSR) and Iraqi
(US) scenarios.
The second group is global considerations. It is about the "return" of Russia to the
international arena through the Middle East and participation in the formation of a more
equitable (from the point of view of Moscow) world order.
The question arises: why was the Syrian conflict chosen by Moscow to solve this problem? At
the same time, other crises that Moscow could use to restore geopolitical weight were present
on the world map -- Libya, Yemen, Ukraine.
The unequivocal support of a particular military or political force in post-Gaddafi
Libya, and even more so armed intervention, involved a difficult choice between numerous armed
units that fought in the country with no guaranteed result. In the conditions of victories of
H. Haftar "in the field", the support of the "legitimate government" in Tobruk threatened a
major foreign policy loss (although Moscow officially recognized Tobruk as legitimate). The
unconditional stake on H. Haftar was risky and would go against the resolutions of the UN
Security Council on Libya.
Moreover, an in-depth intervention in the Libyan crisis would mean that Moscow would have to
deal with the legacy left by Western countries in Libya. Illegal migration resulting from the
short-sighted policies of Europe in Libya did not pose a threat to Russia.
If Yemen, which is very far from Russia both politically and geographically, was of interest
to Moscow [at all], then not from a counter-terrorist point of view (Al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula was localized and, to a certain extent, grew out of the local tribal structure, not
posing a direct threat to Russia), but rather in the context of securing [Russia] the role of
power, without whose participation the settlement of regional crises was of little
prospect.
Ukraine was a special crisis for Russia. The tough, clearly anti-Russian position of the
US and the EU with regard to the sequence of implementation of the Minsk agreements and the
lifting of sanctions demanded from Moscow verified, careful steps, hybrid forms of regulation
and extreme caution in the choice of means. An open demonstration of the position, as was the
case in Syria, for example, the participation of Russian military personnel in armed actions on
the side of the DPR and the LPR, and especially the armed assistance of the Russian Aerospace
Forces would cost Moscow very dearly, both economically and politically. Syria did not fit into
the paradigm about the "expansionist policy" of Russia, which was being advanced by the Western
elites, and therefore was not perceived as the intersection of the "red line" requiring serious
anti-Russian measures from the West.
It was in this connection that the instructions to Russian diplomats on how to respond to
calls by international non-governmental organizations to receive work permits in the DPR and
LPR indicated that it was necessary to respond in the spirit of Moscow not exercising control
over the self-proclaimed republics, and therefore international workers should directly contact
authorities of the DPR and LPR. At the same time, Moscow did not hide the opportunity to
influence the Syrian leadership. Keeping distance from the most odious steps of Damascus
(methods of warfare, attitude to international initiatives on the Syrian settlement, rhetoric
against the armed opposition and the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria,
etc.), Moscow nevertheless recognized that, if necessary, it can get from the Syrian leadership
of various steps (as was the case when the LAS mission obtained permission to work in the SAR;
export and destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons in 2013; resolutions of the UN Security
Council on SAR; agreements in the framework of the Astana format, some of which Damascus
perceived critically).
It is on the basis of these considerations that Russia agreed to the role of one of the two
co-chairs of the International Syria Support Group, which assumed pressure on the authorities
of the SAR in favor of implementing the decisions of the Group. Thus, the demonstration of
"implication" in the Syrian settlement, involvement in it was not so politically costly for
Russia, and the Syrian crisis could be used by the Russian leadership to return positions in
the international arena.
When deciding on active participation in resolving the Syrian conflict, the Russian
leadership could not fail to take into account the internal situation in which it had to
act.
Thus, after the Libyan drama, which in Russian society was linked to "Medvedev's soft
policy", the country's top leadership realized the impossibility of further demonstrating
flexibility with respect to the steps of the West (in the minds of Russians it was the
generalized "West" that overthrew M. Gaddafi, not a coalition of states which included, among
other things, the countries of the region) in its policy of redrawing the geopolitical map of
the Middle East to its liking.
Moscow could not afford to contemplate detachedly the overthrow of B. Assad. In this case,
it threatened to lose the support of the part of the population that was negatively disposed
towards the West in general and the USA in particular. Russian public opinion demanded that
V.V. Putin (Russia's foreign policy, which, in accordance with the Constitution, is determined
by the head of state [11], is personified), who again led the country, take a tough stance on
the Syrian issue and prevent the overthrow of the next Middle Eastern regime.
... ... ...
It is worth mentioning the personal-psychological factor that was present in the politics of
Russia and reflected in the events in the SAR. In the context of cooling relations with the
West (including the US and the EU), which reached its peak during the events in Ukraine, Moscow
began to pay special attention to developing relations with the new centers of power. The
development and strengthening of cooperation with the countries of the post-Soviet space, the
Middle East and Asia -- taking into account the mentality and specifics of these regions --
required the head of state to build personal relations with the leaders of the respective
countries. The latter were to see in Moscow an ally who would not give up on them due to some
short-term reasons or under the pretext of their non-observance of human rights or humanitarian
standards. V.V. Putin's position on V.F. Yanukovych and B. Assad (and his regime) inspired many
regional leaders, in contrast watching the indifferent attitude of the B. Obama administration
towards the fate of H. Mubarak, who built close relations with Washington.
It is characteristic
that a positive perception of the prospects for the return of Moscow to the region as a key
player was shown not only by Russia's former allies (for example, Egypt, Syria, Iran), but also
by some Gulf countries -- for example, the UAE and KSA, whose leaders, in conversations with
the author's participation, positively spoke up about a consistent line of Russia that was not
subject to fluctuations.
Such a position combining two components: the rejection of the
implementation of transformations of state systems outside the constitutional field and the de
facto firm support of an ally on all fronts (political and military) could not but arouse the
approval of the leaders of states that for one reason or another felt vulnerable and did not
rule out that [they] may be subject to aggressive action by the United States.
A typical
example is the approach publicly voiced during a visit to Moscow on July 24, 2017 by the Vice
President and former Prime Minister of Iraq, the leader of the "Daawa" party N. Al-Maliki
during a trip to Moscow in favor of strengthening Russia's position in the region [18]. This
looked particularly symptomatic against the background of the fact that the Shiites were
obliged to obtain a serious role in the political life of Iraq for the American invasion.
The beginning in the fall of 2015 of the operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces against
terrorists in the SAR strengthened Moscow's position not only in the Syrian "dossier", but also
in the international arena as a whole, having served as a catalyst for the creation of new
formats of Syrian settlement involving both Russia and the countries of the region --
International Syria Support Group, Lausanne "Five", Astana format.
"There is no doubt," Pompeo told "Fox News Sunday,"
This, from Sec. Mike Pompous, to the Apparatchik arm of the Administration. As if the
American public, or the world, would/could believe anything out of the mouths of these
pathetic, bombastic, buffoons.
mcsmcs
...We are supposed to believe the intelligence community about this, but not anything else
apparently.
BassHunter
The trifecta of ignorant bellicosity (ie Trump/Bolton/Pompeo) have no credibility because
they constantly and consistently lie about everything all the time. It is a situation of
their own making. The true surprise here is that THEY are surprised that others refuse to
believe them...
13 hours ago Would someone please explain to me why anyone would attempt to remove an
unexploded mine from the side of a ship, and take it on board their own vessel? Seriously. Is
this a case of waste not, want not?
It doesn't matter much, though, even if it's true. Nobody believes a word coming out of this
administration. We are a global laughing stock run by pathological liars. Like thumb_up
5 Reply reply Link link Report flag
mcsmcs 12 hours
ago They would take it because it could be traced back to the country that made it and/or put
it there.
But it they could have taken it off and let it fall to the bottom of the ocean. Like
thumb_up 1 Reply reply Link link Report flag
longretired 10 hours ago The other question is why was the min attached above the waterline?
Mrine mines are designed to explode underwater.
Like thumb_up 1 Reply reply Link link Report
flag Patti C 14 hours ago
Trump and Pompeo are abhorrent. They have destroyed our foreign policy. No one in their right
mind should be voting for Trump for a second term. This administration has no credibility
nationally and internationally. Americans who support Trump are ruining our country and are
voting against their interests over and over again. Wake up! Republicans and Mitch McConnell
should be punished for the amoral Trump Administration. Democrats need to dominate in the 2020
elections! Democrats need to work with all communities across the country to save our
democratic republic. Vote Democrats across the nation in 2020. 10 hours ago About what? He
actually said the Government has determined. And we all know how unreliable this government
is.
The intelligence community always has lots of dat . Like the lies about the Iraq war start,
it did not support their assertions. 15 hours ago Odd the only countries siding with the US
version of this incident are the ones who stand to gain from continuing to isolate Iran.
Saudi Arabia especially is not a fair player, as exemplified by their behavior in Sudan as
well. 15 hours ago Simple. Reread The Boy Who Cried Wolf. When you have a narcissistic
president who cannot speak the truth and goes around naked in The Emperor's New Clothes, his
sycophantic appointees say, "Oh yes, you are wearing the most Beautiful new robe." Like
thumb_up 4 Reply reply Link link Report flag
Portia1992 15 hours ago The U.S. has zero credibility and should never be trusted. We are
warmongers controlled by U.A.E., Saudi Arabia & Israel.
22 hours ago (Edited) This is how stupid we've become: My fear is the real reason we pulled out
of a deal that was very effective at both keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons and
incentivizing them to behave (for greater economic opportunities) is that Trump hates the
fact that Obama developed the deal.
He's forever spoke of developing "a better deal" with regard to everything Obama did. He
wanted a "better" healthcare plan to replace Obamacare too. But the very folks that voted for
Trump (especially in places like Kentucky) benefited too greatly from "Obamacare" and loudly
demanded that Trump not touch it.
Here we go again with Trump trying to screw things up (even if it means risking
American military lives in a conflict that was COMPLETELY unnecessary when Trump took
office).
It was never truly about what Iran was doing. They were behaving so well that all of our
European allies cheered the former peace deal (IT WAS WORKING VERY WELL). Some of this is about
Trump's weird love for Saudi Arabia (a bitter enemy of Iran).
But most of this is in Trump's bigoted head. Put simply, we are on the brink of war with a
very nasty adversary mainly because Trump hates Obama and everything he did. Even our closest
allies (that loved Obama) are not treated as well as Putin (who hated Obama, too). Like
thumb_up 9 Reply reply Link link Report flag
BassHunter 12 hours ago Bingo! Like thumb_up 1 Reply reply
Link link Report flag NormaLee10 22 hours ago
(Edited) Report from my last trip to Iran. I just love the Chinese sneakers I bought in Ahwaz
(sorry Nike) Love the Russian fur hat I bought in Tabriz((sorry Gap) The high speed train,
built by the Chinese, was a wonderful ride. . Thank you to the Russian Crew inviting us to tour
their ship in the port near the Caspian. I get compliments on my Turkish scarves , my Indian
cotton dresses. The new boutique hotel, refurbished by a German chain was great.
Just think, if the Dump would have stayed and expanded on the Nuclear agreement,he could have
sent Ivanka over to pick up where she left off, designing a hotel in Kazakhstan , or stolen
some designs off Persian carpets.
23 hours ago The U.S. lost all credibility under W, who claimed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass
Destruction.
Not a single person in a gubbmint office has learned a damned thing since. Like
thumb_up 6 Reply reply Link link Report flag
decaff 23 hours ago So we watched W. Bush get into a huge mess in Iraq (actually it was
Cheney). Just imagine the mess that the Orange Clown may get us into with Iran. (which benefits
his relationships with Saudi Arabia).
Like thumb_up 5 Reply reply Link link Report
flag Ralph Carlson 23 hours
ago Trump is and always has been nothing more than a bully
Like thumb_up 4 Reply reply Link link Report
flag RGR 23 hours ago This guy
came in on a wild horse ride, Mexicans are rapists, etc...Pull out of the Iran deal (even
though it appeared to be working)....and how he is helping the military (while taking money out
of their budget for 'the wall').
TURNS OUT...he is the wild horse, and this one is not one that should be allowed out of the
barn...
He is a fool...how long does it take to figure this out...his district in NY only voted 10%
for him...they knew! Like thumb_up 5 Reply reply Link
link Report flag Citizen of the Planet 1
day ago You are now witnessing the manifestation of 2 years of Trump's chest pounding and
bullying. No one trusts us. No one. Nobody. Like thumb_up 6 Reply reply Link link Report flag Al Terego Oz 1 day ago
Interesting how quickly it's gone from being possibly a mine to definitely a mine. Like
thumb_up 3 Reply reply Link link Report flag
Bimberg 22 hours ago Very soon Trump will announce that "It's mine, mine, mine!"
Like thumb_up 1 Reply reply Link link Report
flag Pinky_the_Cat 1 day ago
The reason Trump can't make a case for this is that there is no evidence.
There is so little evidence that Trump had to buy propaganda from Heritage.org . That is how thin this
"... Acting totally mad and indicating you don't care is a good way to defeat those who is your equal. Isn't this is exactly how the US government has been acting lately? ..."
"... Interesting this WaPost op/ed totally trashing Trump/Pompeo foreign policy and their utter inability didn't generate any further comment on the previous thread. Sure, it came from BezosPost, but it surely represents some powerful faction that's totally at odds with the directionlessness of Trump and Pompeo. ..."
"... Its June and you know who loves blood to be spilled in June, and right before July 4 you know. Look for a limited aerial strike per PCR, and then they hope Iran retaliates and gives an excuse for them to escalate. ..."
"... Americans are so brainwashed into buying into US militarism and exceptionalism that Trumps approval ratings will go up. Anyone criticizing the military or war is labelled anti-American and censored by Social Media. ..."
"... Seems that Shanahan balked at being the scapegoat for the next war so they found another. Shanahan is said to be pretty smart (Masters and MBA from MIT). ..."
"... Has Trump been misled by his advisors, when he twitted about the infamous video shot in the dark by modern means that would surprise the Iranians?I Mean ,because now it turns out to be made in clear daylight with the newly published images. Is Trump angry about being cheated or did he play with the game and was his twitted remark kind of an inside joke? ..."
"... Previously we had G.Haspel showing non-pertinent to the matter camera shots of duck and children to convince him into expelling a max number of Russian diplomats. ..."
"... I am sure there are many Americans interested to know who is in charge at the USA.. ..."
"... ... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality... Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance -- thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction. ..."
"... Such that Trump is both peace-loving nationalist and empire-loving antagonist. Except that the latter is expressed as a positive: "staunch ally", "tough negotiator", "protector", etc instead of a negative. Some people fall for it (Kool-Aid drinkers) and MSM ignores those that talk about the meta issues of MSM complicity. ..."
"... IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's "on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners (capitalists). ..."
"... In light of what the WaPost published I linked to above regrading the utter lack in confidence in both Trump and Pompeo to conduct a rational foreign policy, I seriously doubt the change at SecDef will provide optimism for improvement. Some apparently think such dissent is just shadowplay; IMO, they are mistaken. And I will again note the dissent isn't just about Iran; rather, it's about the conduct of overall foreign policy, especially Trade Policy, which is eating into corporate profitability. ..."
"... That would be a terrible miscalculation from US leadership. The one reason why Pearl Harbour wasn't a lasting disaster for the US is that the carriers survived. What if Iran actually manages to sink a carrier air group? I mean, nukes and nearly untouchable power projection through aircraft carriers are the two main reasons why the US is still the supreme superpower around. Show people that the carriers can be taken out and actually begin to take them out, and plenty of people and countries will begin to consider leaving that mad army parading as a country to itself - not to mention some will soon openly rebel. ..."
"... The US has 50,000 troops and a carrier strike group "protecting American interests" in the Persian Gulf area of the Middle East. Somebody in government ought to tell us what those "interests" are, which require such an investment. That would be nice. ..."
"... The Guardian-- The Iran crisis was created in Washington. The US must be talked down ..."
Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, who has done a wonderful job, has decided
not to go forward with his confirmation process so that he can devote more time to his
family....
....I thank Pat for his outstanding service and will be naming Secretary of the Army, Mark
Esper, to be the new Acting Secretary of Defense. I know Mark, and have no doubt he will do a
fantastic job
On May 9 the White House announced
that it would nominate Shanahan for the Secretary of Defense position. But it never sent the
nomination request to Congress to have Shanahan confirmed. During the usual FBI background
check before a confirmation, a 2010 domestic violence incident Shanahan was involved in
came up . It seems that it now
ended his short career at the Pentagon.
Shanahan had zero experience in the military. He is a former Boeing manager. A recent
Politicoportrait of
Shanahan described him as weak leader who allowed the war hawks in National Security
Council to directly talk with regional commanders without even informing him. He was no
counterweight for Bolton and Pompeo who are eager to wage war on Iran.
Yesterday ABC News
reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would meet with talk with the Central Command
and Special Operations Command leaders without Shanahan being there. It was extremely
unusual:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will travel to Florida on Monday to meet with leaders from
U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command on Tuesday. The U.S. is considering "all
options," including military force, to respond to Iran's reported attack on two oil vessels,
Pompeo said on Sunday, raising concerns of a U.S. strike.
...
Pompeo will meet with CENTCOM and Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base in
Florida on Tuesday to "discuss regional security concerns and ongoing operations," according
to Ortagus, after calling several world leaders over the weekend to discuss America's
evidence that Iran was behind last week's attacks.
There is no information what plans those talks were about.
At @CENTCOM at @MacDill_AFB, @SecPompeo says he conferred with military commanders to
coordinate State and Defense Dept policy on Iran.
Says US is serious about deterring Iran regime from further aggression in the region.
Says Pres Trump does not want war against Iran.
[Another very unusual sign is that the old war criminal Henry Kissinger visited the Pentagon
yesterday and today .]
Trump already had difficulties to find a new Secretary of Defense. Shanahan was not his
first choice. To now find a new candidate will be difficult.
It is unlikely that the U.S. would launch a war without a Secretary of Defense in place. Bolton and Pompeo obviously want a war on Iran and they try their best to instigate it. They
need a new SecDef in place as soon as possible. Pompeo served five years as an officer in the U.S. army. He has extensive political
experience. Would he want to become Secretary of Defense?
That would leave the Secretary of State position open for John Bolton to move in. The
confirmation would be a bit difficult but the Senate is in Republican hands and might go with
it. One of Bolton's cronies could then take over the National Security Advisor position. From the war-hawks' point of view it would be the ideal configuration to launch a big
one.
Posted by b on June 18, 2019 at 02:03 PM |
Permalink
Possibly true. I was only looking at this from Sputnick:
"The numerous US media stated that Secretary of the Army Mark Esper had been discussed as a
possible alternative choice as defense secretary to Shanahan if Trump decided not to nominate
him."
I have hard time believing that Bolton and Pompeo under consideration. Pompeo isn't gonna
wanna leave his current job and as for Bolton John Kiriakou wrote last week that Trump is
quietly working behind the scenes to find a replacement for him. If anything it might suggest
that Trump is working to covertly reign in Bolton and Pompeo with another SecDef who can
better control them.
Besides Mr. Esper, who was confirmed as secretary of the Army in November 2017, officials
said that Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, and Richard V. Spencer, the secretary of the
Navy, are on the short list for defense secretary.
... and I thought I was to far out speculative with the above.
"From the war-hawks' point of view it would be the ideal configuration to launch a big one." Gosh, and I thought that Hillary was the big warmonger...guess it would've only been worse
under her.
Obama didn't have a problem getting re-elected with all of his own secret foreign wars and
dronings going on. If indeed Pimpeo and Bolt-On get their way, Trump will execute the same
type of campaign against Iran except there will be no boots on the ground, even "advisors"
given the relationship status of the countries surrounding Iran. The U.S. has exhausted its
credibility and goodwill. So we'll be funding terrorists, perpetrating false flags, using
drones to attack Iranian seagoing military vessels and launching the occasional "precision"
cruise missile strike against alleged nuclear weapons and maybe even chemical weapons
processing facilities.
If there is a land war, Israel will fight to the last American troop.
Trump's list of Most Unsuitable Candidates for Higher Office is getting perilously short.
Assuming our most famous U.S. billionaire capitalists are not interested, what are Cheney and
Condoleezza doing these days? Erik Prince? Some aging Grand Wizard of the KKK? A random death
row inmate? The mind boggles.
i said this on the last thread, but i would be curious for others feedback on it..
"think about it... is there going to be more money made and generated starting a war on
iran, or not?? the choice is obvious for those into money... create mayhem and raise a lot of
money off of it.. and what countries seem to excel at that??"
as for innocent people dying, that has never been a concern for those into money...
Just to see how far we've come, or how bad the situation is, I'd consider Kissinger going on
his own to check things out with the top military brass to actually be a good sign. He's no
fool and knows that war with Iran will only confirm to Russia and China that they have to
stand together, strong, against the USA, and that they'd probably better back Iran up on this
one. I wouldn't be surprised if Kissinger is back to his old ways, and that's it's a similar
move to when he warned the generals to call him right away if Nixon ever gave the order to
use nukes. The guy is slimy and ruthless, but knows the limits and doesn't plan to suicide
half the planet.
Colonel Pat Lang assumes that Shanahan just resigns in disgust because Pompeo and Bolton
are running the show without consulting with the military. Not sure which is right.
One can hope that the neo-con buddies overplayed their hands and that they just put Trump in
such a shitty situation that he's going to tell them to go to Hell soon - hopefully before
anyone does something *really* stupid. But right now, that's just that, hope.
NYT saying Pompeo is considered for SecDef might just be Pompeo and his neo-con buddies
saying dumb shit and leaking false information to appear important, and trying to force
Trump's hands. I really hope that's what happened - because then it would piss Trump off and
he might be looking for a way of getting rid of him. If the leak is genuine, on the other
hand, that's a terrible sign.
Yes, I believe the US would use nukes if they think they could get away with it... that's
how crazy works. Would the other nuclear powers step in,,, highly doubtful. If that happens
then the US might even threaten them with annihilation. They would believe the US is sooo
insane that it would really risk planet destruction and could decide to cave to the US
wishes.
Acting totally mad and indicating you don't care is a good way to defeat those who is your
equal. Isn't this is exactly how the US government has been acting lately?
"I believe the US would use nukes if they think they could get away with it...that's how
crazy evil works."
and Sean Hannity would say ... "never has a country had so much power and abused it so
little, the Iranians [10 minute Litany of robotic talking point lies] left us no choice." Pompeo, Pence and Haley all declaring it the most righteous and justifiable act ever. Trump would close the border to any Iranian refugees and embargo any Iranians who survived
just like he is doing to the Syrians and Venezuelans now.
Isn't the Secretary of State the most senior member of the cabinet and regarded as more
powerful that POTUS? The position where real power resides? How could a buffoon like Bolton
even be considered for Secretary if State? Just another one of Trump's ricaldoodlelus
appointments? What a lark!
Bolton graduated from Yale in 1970. I wonder if he is a member of the Skull & Bones?
Or closely associated? If so, that makes him much, much more than a mere buffoon but, rather,
the very embodiment of the Deep State's and neo-Con's war strategy; that would make Bolton a
very, very dangerous person in a very, very powerful position.
Trump would appear to be nothing more than a facilitator.
Both George H.W & George W. Bush were bonesman. Cheney only went to Yale but didn't
graduate. Far from Cheney being the controlling influence over George W. (as presented in
media and movies) maybe Cheney was just following orders.
Marie Colville (did she ever really exist?) also appears to have been an alumni of Yale
(was a fake background constructed?).
Supposedly, the Skull & Bones control Yale; what a very strange place. Anyone,
associated with Yale (like Bolton) should be kept well away from power!
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Just when you think the US of A's Generalissimo Bone Spur and
President Chief Kaiser of Ignorance Arrogance, Stupidity and Hypocrisy (aka: Donald Trump)
could not sink to any lower level of idiocy than he already has, he does so. What a country!
Only in America!
Shouldn't be difficult for Iran, if bmobed at all by US/NATO, to hit Israel - in a big way -
from a number of geographic locations and a variety of methods. It would be major and
catastrophic.
It poses too great a danger to good friends, with whom the USA maintains an "irrevocable
bond", according to the US Congress, the Apartheid State of Israel.
I guess Shanahan resigned so he could spend more time abusing his family.
I find it interesting that one of the ships attacked, the Front Altair, had a crew of
Russians and Filipinos.
This was the crew saved by the Iranians. The US story is that they were picked up by a Dutch
tanker and then kidnapped by the Iranians. Clearly, the Iranians still saved them, no matter
who actually picked them up first.
If the Dutch had turned the crew over to the US, who believes that they would already be
released? (The Iranians already released them).
I know that B thinks that this attack was from the Iranians, but the fact that one ship was
Japanese, while Abe was in Tehran, and the other had a crew of Russians and Filipinos, both
countries under attack from the US, makes me believe that those men were destined to be held
for leverage.
For a preview of what things would look like with Pompeo and Bolton in those positions, I
recommend a viewing of the movie Vice. (Vice, as in Cheney, working with Rumsfeld and
narcissistic poodles such as Powell to start the current ME quagmire.)
Trump went too far with Iran under the devilish advice and initiatives of Heckle and
Jeckle...
If he wants to stop the escalation with Iran, before it gets out of control, the only way is
to move Pompeo to Sec of Defense where he will have to face the powerful and war-reluctant
military. Trump would also simultaneously fire Bolton.
Depending on the reactions of the neocons and Jewish lobby, he will then choose a new sec of
state, 'brilliant' Jared Kushner?
I think the US has become very skilled at fighting wars without taking casualties. I think
the air attacks in Syria - on Iranian forces - have made it pretty clear that Iran has no
meaningful defense capabilities vs air attack. What Trump is probably counting on is a turkey
shoot and I think that is exactly what it will be.
What is Trump's motivation to be provocative with Iran?' Pelosi asks – and the answer is Adelson.
Adelson called on the last president, Barack Obama, to nuke Iran in 2013
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/06/motivation-provocative-adelson/
its a war for israel
We should take heart from readers comments in the New York Times in response to an article by
the NYT Editorial Board.
There were 473 of them before the Times closed the discussion, and we could not find a single
one that is supportive of war or of U.S. efforts to continue pressure on Iran. So Bret
Stephens gets to spur on a war in his Times column, but the paper's readers are universally
against the idea. Moreover, they hold the Times responsible and see through the equivocations
in the editorial. Several point out that the press was the handmaiden of the Iraq disaster.
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/06/readers-newspaper-abetting/#comments
The US position is an attempt to keep hegemony over the region because both Israel and Saudi
Arabia feel the US is losing it, and they are correct.
Trump walked away from the JCPOA at the
behest of Israel with the accusation that it was a bad deal, the deal did in fact rule out
enrichment of uranium above 3.5%, approx 90% enrichment is required to build a nuclear
device.
The Ayatollah issued a decree to the effect that nuclear weapons were un-Islamic,
therefore Iran should not have them.
The real reason Trump walked away was because Iran was
in rapid production of highly accurate conventional ballistic missiles some of which would
find their way to Hezbollah, the UN Resolution banned the building of missiles capable of
carrying a nuclear payload, but not conventional warheads, to ban the latter would have
rendered Iran defenseless, which was the whole idea of the Israeli and Saudi Arabian
intervention.
Being incapable of defending itself is not something any state could
countenance, that's why it will never happen, hence the stand off.
In my opinion there will be no war with Iran, too many losers, Saudi Arabia/UAE, Israel, the
US fleet [in Bahrain] the US bases all over the Middle East, of course Iran and its friends
could be destroyed [but at what cost?] The Strait of Hormus is bristling with Iranian anti
ship missiles, the first sign of war would see the US fleet depart from Bahrain, the
lumbering giant and vulnerable B52's based in Qatar would not get off the ground and US
airbases in the region well within range if Iranian missiles would be reduced to rubble. As
for any US carriers in the area and why US carriers are obsolete, especially in the Iranian
situation here is an article by Gary Brecher from 10 years ago and very witty.. http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/
Interesting
this WaPost op/ed totally trashing Trump/Pompeo foreign policy and their utter inability
didn't generate any further comment on the previous thread. Sure, it came from BezosPost, but
it surely represents some powerful faction that's totally at odds with the directionlessness
of Trump and Pompeo.
After so many fiascos, there seems to be very little appetite for armed conflict amongst
the Vassals except for UK. There's lots of domestic uproar over Trump policies the tanker
attacks have muted so far but won't go away anytime soon -- particularly the Concentration Camp
charges, which are 100% correct, extremely damning and damaging.
Look at the situation from
overseas. Escalating belligerency across the board aimed at enemies and allies alike is
combined with visibly repressive, likely unconstitutional and, in the world's eyes, morally
reprehensible actions toward vulnerable innocents from which horror stories occur on a daily
basis. Oh, and don't forget Assange and the War against Truth. And your government is being
asked to support TrumpCo's policies?! I bet plenty of leaders are biting their tongues. The
G-20's in ten days.
At least Gates resisted the Obama/Hillary mission to destroy Libya (worked with JCS to
contact Gaddhafi's sons). Hillary put a stop to that. One wonders if Pompeo and Bolton are
playing a multi-view game of picking a SecDef that they (and Kushner/Netanyau) approve of.
Oops. It wasn't so much Gates as Kucinich leading that effort with the JCS. But Gates was
hesitant in a TIME article about a meeting with Obama and KerryHillary to discuss possible
military action against Iran. At the time, I figured it was posturing for Israel. I focused
on the description of Kerry and Hillary as "interventionists."
This is rather ominous. Sounds a bit like cleaning house and removing potential witnesses who
aren't will the program or may soon have a grudge to bear.
Its June and you know who loves blood to be spilled in June, and right before July 4 you
know. Look for a limited aerial strike per PCR, and then they hope Iran retaliates and gives an
excuse for them to escalate.
Americans are so brainwashed into buying into US militarism and exceptionalism that Trumps
approval ratings will go up. Anyone criticizing the military or war is labelled anti-American and censored by Social Media.
Declining IQ's and chronic illnesses due to vaccines and other environmental toxins will limit any protests. Besides, the
military is the one way to get a free college education while getting paid to go to school. The young will continue lining up
to serve and fight these threats to the American way of life. Shouting America First. MAGA. Waving their Made in China flag.
God blesses US. Might makes right, etc
Puppet regimes in occupied Europe will go along. Fellow Fake wrestlers in China and Russia
will make squeaky noises. So predictable
It dawned on me that those outside the Outlaw US Empire don't know about TrumpCo's
Concentration Camps and the surrounding, escalating controversy. As I've written,
conflation of Concentration with Death Camps and decades of propaganda are fueling the issue:
"'The Holocaust did not begin with the murder of six million Jews,' writer Bess Kalb
tweeted in response to Cheney. 'It began with the same dehumanization, deportation, and
internment we see today. You, sickeningly, invoke the Holocaust to minimize their suffering.
Shame.'
As you might imagine given the level of Jewish/Zionist support, Cheney and the Republicans
have made an enormous mistake.
"Come to think of it, unless Dick Cheney is busy with other priorities, he ought to be
available for a reboot of Shock & Awe."
There are some who believe he is the unofficial President running things from his
underground city built as part of the Continuity of Government that kicks in during National
Emergencies such as the one declared 18 years ago and still in effect
Not 100% sure this is true but I suspect his voice is being heard
President Trump made the announcement with a pair of midday tweets that Shanahan was
withdrawing and that Army Secretary Mark Esper would take his place as acting Defense
secretary
On Esper, in April Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan announced that the
president nominated Army Gen. Mark Milley to serve as the next JCS chairman which would be
effective in about September when General Joseph Dunford leaves after four years on the job.
His predecessor was an Army general, so it was considered odd to select another Army general
to be top dog.
Now, Esper is Army too and if he were nominated for SecDef that would shake some people.
What about Air Force and Navy? What are they, chopped liver?
. . .more on Esper from The Hill:
Esper graduated from West Point in 1986 and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel before
retiring. His Army career includes a combat tour in Iraq during the Gulf War. Several
Republican senators have already said they'd support Esper should he be nominated.
. . .(but) Esper was a lobbyist at defense contractor Raytheon for seven years prior to
becoming Army secretary. Esper's lobbyist past could bring up some of the issues that
dogged Shanahan on potential conflicts of interest.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Executive Director Noah Bookbinder
said in a statement that Esper "risk[s] being tainted by his previous work for a major
defense contractor. The group's allegations against Shanahan in part prompted the inspector
general investigation.
"While Esper may not have had sway over these types of deals as secretary of the Army,
as acting secretary of Defense he will have potential influence over such deals, as well as
over the controversial proposed merger of Raytheon and UTC to become the second largest
defense company in the U.S.," Bookbinder said. "His ethics agreement -- and his ability to
follow it -- will be something we will be watching closely." . . .
here
Seems that Shanahan balked at being the scapegoat for the next war so they found
another. Shanahan is said to be pretty smart (Masters and MBA from MIT).
Is it that he's not a strong manager or did he just play along to get his ticket
stamped? I wouldn't be surprised if he's made the new CEO of Boeing (It's now clear that
Boeing will have to do more to recover from their 737Max debacle) . Or perhaps he'll join
a Defense-focused Private Equity firm, or simply sit on the Boards of several defense-related
enterprises. Any of these will be better than accepting the Trump Administration's Poison
Chalice.
Seems that Shanahan balked at being the scapegoat for the next war so they found another.
Shanahan is said to be pretty smart (Masters and MBA from MIT).
Is it that he's not a strong manager or did he just play along to get his ticket stamped?
I wouldn't be surprised if he's made the new CEO of Boeing (It's now clear that Boeing
will have to do more to recover from their 737Max debacle) . Or perhaps he'll join a
Defense-focused Private Equity firm, or simply sit on the Boards of several defense-related
enterprises. Any of these will be better than accepting the Trump Administration's Poison
Chalice.
Has Trump been misled by his advisors, when he twitted about the infamous video shot in the
dark by modern means that would surprise the Iranians?I Mean ,because now it turns out to be
made in clear daylight with the newly published images. Is Trump angry about being cheated or
did he play with the game and was his twitted remark kind of an inside joke?
Previously we had G.Haspel showing non-pertinent to the matter camera shots of duck and
children to convince him into expelling a max number of Russian diplomats.
And much earlier it
was pictures shown to Melania and him of dead or agonizing Syrian children that made him
order missile attack on Syria. Is that the way he is being handled by his surroundings in his
decision process? Is there a doctor around at the White House?
Reading Harry Law's post @41, it looks like the US needs another Pearl Harbour to carry its
people to war.
Plenty of Pearl Harbour type assets around the Persian Gulf. Problem for the US is getting
Iran to react and hit some of these.
... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct,
often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy
and neutrality... Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance -- thus the
person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.
Such that Trump is both peace-loving nationalist and empire-loving antagonist. Except that
the latter is expressed as a positive: "staunch ally", "tough negotiator", "protector", etc
instead of a negative. Some people fall for it (Kool-Aid drinkers) and MSM ignores those that
talk about the meta issues of MSM complicity.
And it's not just Trump. Whenever a President does things that might cause cognitive
dissonance, apologists and the feckless press explain it away as a positive or blame
subordinates for "sabotaging" the hero President.
snake @53: I am sure there are many Americans interested to know who is in charge at the
USA..
IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's
"on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls
the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners
(capitalists).
They appointed a VP of Raetheon as Secretary of Defense which is appropriate because that is
who is selling the US the missiles to demolish Iran.
US intelligence learns from a highly credible source that Iran's Revolutionary Guards
have completed preparations for a large-scale assault on an important Saudi oil facility
within days.
You know this stuff is being fed to the military industrial congressional complex. It
looks like they will start some limited bombing of Iran prior to the 2020 elections to get
everyone waving their flags and shouting Hurahh.
I hope there isn't a war, but there is one nation you didn't mention which doesn't figure
it'll be hurt much by an outbreak of violence. A large number of goyim ending up dead doesn't
bother them the least bit. I'd imagine the smashing of Iran would be worth receiving a few
bombs on their stolen land. But not a lot, for if that happened they'd start waving around
the nuke option and cause Trump to keep on till the job was done to their satisfaction.
Thanks for the old War Nerd link. If the situation with aircraft carriers was bad then, a
2019 update would show them to be even worse in the death-trap category. But we're still
building them.
In light of what the WaPost published I linked to above regrading the utter lack in
confidence in both Trump and Pompeo to conduct a rational foreign policy, I seriously doubt
the change at SecDef will provide optimism for improvement. Some apparently think such
dissent is just shadowplay; IMO, they are mistaken. And I will again note the dissent isn't
just about Iran; rather, it's about the conduct of overall foreign policy, especially Trade
Policy, which is eating into corporate profitability.
Which side will take the next move is the question now. Perhaps another Houthi attack on
Saudi oil infrastructure, which present very soft, vulnerable targets. Perhaps a Houthi
ballistic missile attack on UAE port facilities. The Idlib offensive will begin again after
the non-ceasefire that saw continual al-Qaeda attacks and mounting Terrorist losses; perhaps,
the long awaited push West from Aleppo will occur. But Syria is tangential to the Iranian
confrontation. Maybe the EU will announce something significant that shows independent
thinking? Time marches inexorably onward to the next event.
That would be a terrible miscalculation from US leadership. The one reason why Pearl Harbour
wasn't a lasting disaster for the US is that the carriers survived. What if Iran actually
manages to sink a carrier air group? I mean, nukes and nearly untouchable power projection
through aircraft carriers are the two main reasons why the US is still the supreme superpower
around. Show people that the carriers can be taken out and actually begin to take them out,
and plenty of people and countries will begin to consider leaving that mad army parading as a
country to itself - not to mention some will soon openly rebel.
The US has 50,000 troops and a carrier strike group "protecting American interests" in the
Persian Gulf area of the Middle East. Somebody in government ought to tell us what those
"interests" are, which require such an investment. That would be nice.
I think that article is about Iran having a reason to do it, but I didn't read in it that
"b" believed that Iran had done it. I took him as more musing about the possibility without
believing it himself?
Unnecessarily aggressive, ill-considered – and deceptively presented – US
policies have once again brought the Middle East to the brink of an accidental war very few
want. America's European friends, including Britain, have an urgent responsibility to talk
it down – and drag it back from the abyss.
Global Opinions
What the Iran crisis tells us about Trump's lack of credibility
Why the Persian Gulf is a flashpoint for U.S.-Iran tensions
Here's what you need to know about the two suspected attacks on five ships in the Persian Gulf in the last month
and the region where they occurred.
(Joyce
Lee, Elyse Samuels/The Washington Post)
By
Jason
Rezaian
Global Opinions writer
June 17
Nearly a week after
two
oil tankers
were attacked with explosives in the Gulf of Oman, what actually happened is still in dispute. What is
clear to everyone watching, though, is the Trump administration's complete lack of credibility as it continues its
bumbling attempts to express a coherent Iran policy.
Soon after the attack, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo showed a grainy video of several men on a small boat pulling an
object from the side of a much larger vessel. He claimed the video showed an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded
mine from the ship. This, he said, was irrefutable evidence that Iran had launched an attack on a Japanese-owned ship.
Pompeo made these statements on the same day that Japan's prime minister, Shinzo Abe,
visited
Tehran
-- at the behest of President Trump -- to urge Iran to begin new negotiations with the White House.
The skepticism was immediate. Allies who are predisposed to agree with the United States on all issues (such as Britain
or and Israel), or specifically on anti-Iran measures (such as
Saudi
Arabia
or the United Arab Emirates) were on board.
"The video is not enough. We can understand what is being shown, sure, but to make a final assessment, this is not
enough for me," Germany's foreign minister, Heiko Maas,
told
reporters
on Friday. Japan has also requested
stronger
evidence
.
Iran could very well have been behind the tanker attacks, as the Trump administration claims. But the lingering doubts
about the White House's account, expressed by friends and adversaries alike, are the real story here.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the State Department on June 13. (Alex Brandon/AP)
"There is no doubt," Pompeo
told
"Fox
News Sunday," adding, "The intelligence community has lots of data, lots of evidence. The world will come to see much of
it, but the American people should rest assured we have high confidence with respect to who conducted these attacks as
well as half a dozen other attacks throughout the world over the past 40 days."
But there appears to be great doubt, and the fault lies with the administration's flimsy and unconvincing case to
counter what it claims is an increasing threat from Tehran.
As though on cue, Iran's Atomic Energy Organization announced on Monday that it would
increase
its stockpile
of enriched uranium to beyond the limits it had agreed to as part of the 2015 nuclear
deal
with
world powers, including the United States.
From the start, the entire premise of Trump's decision to pull out of the nuclear agreement with Iran was disingenuous.
Like the Obama-era deal or not, it seemed to be doing what it was intended to do: limiting Iran's nuclear activities so
that it couldn't weaponize its program. By withdrawing from the deal, the Trump administration gave up key leverage that
it could use against the regime.
Iran's move to begin pulling back from its commitments under the nuclear deal underscores that fact, and marks yet
another escalation in tensions between Tehran and Washington.
The State Department's narrative that Iran's malign behavior over recent months is a result of a regime emboldened by a
weak nuclear deal, and then angered by Washington pulling out of that same deal, is a farce.
The Iranian regime has been engaged in terrible acts since its inception 40 years ago. Its antagonism toward the United
States and its allies has ebbed and flowed, depending on perceived threats and opportunities -- and the U.S. withdrawal
from the deal took away the major incentive Iran had to behave.
By its own rhetoric, the Trump administration is currently exerting what it calls "maximum pressure" on Tehran. Under
this policy, reactions from Iran -- such as the tanker attacks or increased uranium enrichment -- are not only expected,
but are, in essence, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
By being pushed into a corner economically and militarily, the regime in Tehran may perceive there to be few other
options.
Given recent events, the administration has reason to call for increased pressure on Iran. But other world leaders are
signaling to the White House that they don't trust Washington to lead the way.
The big question, then, is why is the administration failing so miserably in making its case to the world? The reactions
to Pompeo's
remarks
reflect
how much credibility the administration has lost -- both on Iran, and on its foreign policy objectives as a whole.
Pointing a finger at Iran for any crime was once as close to a slam dunk as there was in international politics. Not
anymore.
That is because we are reminded at every turn that the notions of U.S. supremacy and security have little to do with the
promotion of foreign democracy. The Trump team's inability to take a principled stand on the
thuggish
behavior
of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the tepid response to the
crisis
in Venezuela
are prime examples.
And if Iran did attack the tankers, it was likely banking on exactly what has happened: one more crack in the United
States' shield of credibility.
The best comments and conversations at The Washington Post, delivered every Friday. Join the conversation.
By signing up you agree to our
Terms
of Use
and
Privacy
Policy
Jason Rezaian
Jason
Rezaian is a writer for Global Opinions. He served as The Post's correspondent in Tehran from 2012 to 2016.
He spent 544 days unjustly imprisoned by Iranian authorities until his release in January 2016.
Follow
Others cover stories. We uncover them.
Limited time offer:
Get unlimited digital access for less than $1/week.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/talk/embed/stream?asset_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2F2019%2F06%2F17%2Fwhat-iran-crisis-tells-us-about-trumps-lack-credibility%2F&initialWidth=487&childId=coral_talk_embed&parentTitle=Iran%2C%20Trump%20%E2%80%94%20and%20what%20the%20crisis%20says%20about%20his%20lack%20of%20credibility%20-%20The%20Washington%20Post&parentUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2F2019%2F06%2F17%2Fwhat-iran-crisis-tells-us-about-trumps-lack-credibility%2F%3Futm_term%3D.e30d0d714cc6
Most Read
Opinions
"... Even more depressing, McMaster is author of the excellent book, "Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam". Now he's retailing lies of his own in pursuit of another war. ..."
"... The "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies" subsists on donations intended to advance the foreign policy agendas of countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Those are the kind of "democracies" they want America to "defend" ..."
McMaster then proceeds to mount a hypothetical -- nuclear blackmail. "This regime could say [if U.S. forces] don't go
off the Korean Peninsula, we're going to threaten the use of nuclear weapons," the retired general explained. And yet
this, too, is riddled with nonsense, the biggest objection being that making such an ultimatum would court the very
military confrontation with the United States he wants to avoid.
When McMaster was in the Trump administration, he
floated
many of the same arguments about why
attacking
North Korea should be an option. Those
arguments
didn't make any
sense
when he made them as National Security Advisor, and they haven't improved now that he has migrated to the
inaccurately named Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). McMaster's latest statements confirm that his preventive
war talk wasn't just empty rhetoric on his part when he worked for Trump. He was apparently
deadly serious
about entertaining a U.S. attack on North Korea, and he continues to talk about it as though it were a reasonable and
legitimate policy option. The reporting that he and others in the administration had a
"messianic fervor"
about this seems to have been right.
It can't be stressed enough that launching an attack on North Korea would an outrageous act of aggression. It would
put the U.S. in clear violation of the U.N. Charter and make our government an illegal aggressor just like North Korea
was in 1950. McMaster was and still is promoting the idea that the U.S. should be willing to commit a massive crime
against another country. Unfortunately, talk of preventive war against certain states is not just tolerated in
Washington, but it is actively encouraged and embraced by many other hard-liners, including the current National
Security Advisor, who is also in favor of launching an attack on North Korea. These hard-liners dismiss the possibility
of deterring these states so that they can have an excuse to attack, but invariably the behavior they cite as evidence
that a state can't be deterred is proof that they desire self-preservation and regime security above all else.
Hard-liners also like to warn about "nuclear blackmail" from other states, but they can't ever produce an example of
a nuclear weapons state that has successfully engaged in such blackmail to extract concessions from others. It makes
even less sense when we consider what would happen to the blackmailing state if it followed through on the threat.
Threatening to launch a nuclear first strike to gain concessions from other governments wouldn't get that government
what it wants, and carrying out the threat would result in the state's certain annihilation. There is no upside to
engaging in "nuclear blackmail" and a huge downside. If "nuclear blackmail" worked, there would likely have been a lot
more blackmail attempts by nuclear weapons state over the last seventy-four years, and more states would want to acquire
nuclear weapons for this purpose. In reality, just about the only use that nuclear weapons have is to deter attacks from
others, and that is pretty clearly why North Korea built their nuclear arsenal. Threatening them with attack just
confirms them in their view that they have to retain them, and actually attacking them would be the only thing that is
likely to prompt them to use them.
There's a scene in the movie Dr. Strangelove where all the powerful men were sitting in the war room discussing
the possible state of the world after the nuclear attack. They start by lamenting the deaths of tens of
millions of Americans, and that they might be the only leaders left to rebuild America. They then worked their
way to moving to a bunker to make sure they were safe, then bringing in women who could help repopulate the
country, and then making sure the women were beautiful and that there would be enough to get started on having
lots of children right away. So in less than 2 minutes, they go from the end of civilization to having a harem
for each of them. When powerful people can see a disaster as a chance to gain even more power, they will take
it regardless of the consequences to anyone else. That's who they are.
I must have missed when our own official policy renounced nuclear first strike. As far as I know, it's still
"one of the options on the table." And now with the latest "low yield nuke" deployments in the pipeline, it
gives the illusion that nuclear war can be a winning option to defend the heartland or expand the empire's
overseas power.
Even more depressing, McMaster is author of the excellent book, "Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam". Now he's retailing lies of his own in pursuit of
another war.
"the inaccurately named Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)"
That name is a sick joke. The
"Foundation for the Defense of Democracies" subsists on donations intended to advance the foreign policy
agendas of countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Those are the kind of "democracies" they want America to
"defend".
McMaster has literally gone off the edge since he was named as the head of a group over at the FDD group of
warmongers -- they literally on a daily basis call for more war, attacks on Iran, and NK -- more tragically, they have
access and influence with Bolton and Pompeo.
Sick beyond belief but that is where their money comes into play.
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
"... Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures for the various departments. ..."
"... I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet. ..."
"... A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies). ..."
It is not about politics, but Trump's peculiar management style, Timofey Bordachev, Director
of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies of the Faculty of World Economy
and International Affairs at Russia's High School of Economics, told RIA Novosti.
"Those who have been studying the business biography of the newly elected president have
noted that he has always played off his high-ranking employees against each other. While doing
so he remained above the fight," he said.
And
Gevorg Mirzayan, an assistant professor of the Political Science department at the Financial
University in Moscow pointed out two purposes for the nominations.
The above brings rationality to the diverse selections made by Trump.
However, the black swan event will be an economic collapse (fast or protracted over several
years). That will be the defining event in the Trump presidency. I have no inkling how he or those
who may replace him would respond.
I had guessed myself that Trump was going to run the government as a business corporation. Surrounding
himself with people of competing viewpoints, and hiring on the basis of experience and skills
(and not on the basis of loyalty, as Hillary Clinton might have done) would be two ways Trump
can change the government and its culture. Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity
of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow
and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with
Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures
for the various departments.
If running the US government as a large mock business enterprise brings a change in its culture
so it becomes more open and accountable to the public, less directed by ideology and identity
politics, and gets rid of people engaged in building up their own little empires within the different
departments, then Trump might just be the President the US needs at this moment in time.
Interesting that Russian academics have noted the outlines of Trump's likely cabinet and what
they suggest he plans to do, and no-one else has. Does this imply that Americans and others in
the West have lost sight of how large business corporations could be run, or should be run, and
everyone is fixated on fake "entrepreneurship" or "self-entrepreneur" (whatever that means) models
of running a business where it's every man, woman, child and dog for itself?
I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet.
Trump may have noted how Putin did an incredible turnaround of Russia and it all started with
three objectives: restore the integrity of the borders, rebuild the industrial base and run off
the globalists/liberals/kreakles. I am certainly not the first one to say this and I think that
there is a lot of basis for that analysis. However, Trump will have a far more difficult challenge
and frankly I don't think he has enough allies or smarts to pull it off.
A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions
remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected
and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies).
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically fascinating as now.
Appointment on Bolton essentially confirms Fred Reed diagnose of Trump: "profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law.
Notable quotes:
"... Until Bush II, those governing were never lunatics. Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Obama, Clinton had their defects, were sometimes corrupt, and could be disagreed with on many grounds. They weren't crazy. ..."
"... The problem with the current occupants of the White House is not that they are conservatives, if they are. It is that they are nuts. ..."
"... Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate con man who danced just out of reach of the law ..."
"... A particularly loathsome sort of politician is one who dodges his country's wars when of military age, and then wants to send others to die in later wars. This is Pussy John, arch hawk, coward, amoral, bully, willing to kill any number while he prances martially in Washington. Speaking as one who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, I would like to confine this fierce darling for life in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda. ..."
"... I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth ..."
"... The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive & inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation. The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's & naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer competitors. ..."
American government has become a collection of sordid and dangerous clowns. It was not
always thus. Until Bush II, those governing were never lunatics. Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Obama, Clinton had their defects, were sometimes corrupt, and could be
disagreed with on many grounds. They weren't crazy. Today's administration would seem
unwholesome in a New York bus station at three in the morning. They are not normal American
politicians.
In particular they seem to be pushing for war with Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela. And
-- this is important -- their behavior is not a matter of liberals catfighting with
conservatives. All former presidents carefully avoided war with the Soviet Union, which
carefully avoided war with America.
It was Reagan, a conservative and responsible president,
who negotiated the INF treaty, to eliminate short-fuse nuclear weapons from Europe. By
contrast, Trump is scrapping it. Pat Buchanan, the most conservative man I have met, strongly
opposes aggression against Russia. The problem with the current occupants of the White House is
not that they are conservatives, if they are. It is that they are nuts.
Donald the Cockatoo
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in fury at this.
All politics being herd politics, the population has coalesced into herds fanatically pro-Trump
and fanatically anti-Trump. Yet Trump's past is not a secret. Well-documented biographies
describe his behavior in detail, but his supporters don't read them. The following is a bit
long, but worth reading.
"I always get even," Trump writes in the opening line of that chapter. He then launches
into an attack on the same woman he had denounced in Colorado. Trump recruited the unnamed
woman "from her government job where she was making peanuts," her career going nowhere. "I
decided to make her somebody. I gave her a great job at the Trump Organization, and over time
she became powerful in real estate. She bought a beautiful home.
"When Trump was in financial trouble in the early nineties .."I asked her to make a phone
call to an extremely close friend of hers who held a powerful position at a big bank and
would have done what she asked. She said, "Donald, I can't do that." Instead of accepting
that the woman felt that such a call would be inappropriate, Trump fired her. She started her
own business. Trump writes that her business failed. "I was really happy when I found that
out," he says.
"She had turned on me after I did so much to help her. I had asked her to do me a favor in
return, and she turned me down flat. She ended up losing her home. Her husband, who was only
in it for the money, walked out on her and I was glad. Over the years many people have called
me asking for a recommendation for her. I always gave her bad recommendation. I can't stomach
disloyalty. ..and now I go out of my way to make her life miserable."
All that because (if she exists) she declined to engage in corruption for the Donald. That
is your President. A draft dodger, a pampered rich kid, and Ivy brat (Penn, Wharton). This
increasingly is a pattern at the top: Ivy, money, no military service.
A particularly loathsome sort of politician is one who dodges his country's wars when of
military age, and then wants to send others to die in later wars. This is Pussy John, arch
hawk, coward, amoral, bully, willing to kill any number while he prances martially in
Washington. Speaking as one who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, I would like to confine this
fierce darling for life in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda.
Pussy John, an Ivy flower (Yale) wrote in a reunion books that, during the 1969 Vietnam War
draft lottery, "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered
the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton explained that he decided to avoid
service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me
that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no
great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to
take it away from."
This same Pussy John, unwilling to risk his valuable being in a war he could have attended,
now wants war with Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Syria, and Afghanistan. In these wars millions
would die while he waggled his silly lip broom in the West Wing. His truculence is pathological
and dangerous.
Here is PJ on
Iran: which has not harmed and does not threaten America: "We think the government is under
real pressure and it's our intention to squeeze them very hard," Bolton said Tuesday in
Singapore. "As the British say, 'squeeze them until the pips squeak'."
How very brave of him. He apparently feels sadistic delight at starving Venezuelans,
inciting civil war, and ruining the lives of millions who have done nothing wrong. Whence the
weird hostility of this empty jockstrap, the lack of humanity? Forgot his Midiol? Venezuela of
course has done nothing to the US and couldn't if it wanted to. America under the Freak Show is
destroying another country simply because it doesn't meekly obey. While PJ gloats.
Bush II
Another rich kid and Yalie, none too bright, amoral as the rest, another draft dodger, (he
hid in the Air National Guard.) who got to the White House on daddy's name recognition. Not
having the balls to fight in his own war, he presided over the destruction of Iraq and the
killing of hundreds of thousands, for no reason. (Except oil, Israel, and Empire. Collectively,
these amount to no reason.) He then had the effrontery to pose on the deck of an aircraft
carrier and say, "Mission accomplished." You know, just like Alexander the Great. Amoral. No
empathy. What a man.
The striking pattern of the Ivy League avoiding the war confirmed then, as it does now, that
our present rulers regard the rest of America as beings of a lower order. These armchair John
Waynes might have called them "deplorables," though Hillary, another Yalie bowwow hawk, had not
yet made the contempt explicit. This was the attitude of Pussy John, Bushy-Bushy Two, and
Cockatoo Don. Compare this with the Falklands War in which Prince Andrew did what a country's
leadership should do, but ours doesn't..
Wikipedia: "He (Prince Andrew)
holds the rank of commander and the honorary rank of Vice Admiral (as of February 2015) in the
Royal Navy, in which he served as an active-duty helicopter pilot and instructor and as the
captain of a warship. He saw active service during the Falklands War, flying on multiple
missions including anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy, and casualty evacuation"
The Brits still have class. Compare Andrew with the contents of the Great Double-Wide on
Pennsylvania Avernus.
Gina
A measure of the moral degradation of America: It is the only country that openly and
proudly engages in torture. Many countries do it, of course. We admit it, and maintain torture
prisons around the globe. Now we have a major government official, Gina Haspel, head of the
CIA, a known sadist. "Bloody Gina." Is this who represents us? Would any other country in the
civilized world put a sadist publicly in office?
Think of Gina waterboarding some guy, or standing around and getting off on it. You don't
torture people unless you like it. The guy is tied down, coughing, choking, screaming, begging,
desperate, drowning, and Gina pours more water. The poor bastard vomits, chokes. Gina adds a
little more water .
What kind of woman would do this? Well, Gina's kind obviously. Does she then run off to her
office and lock the door for half an hour? Maybe it starts early. One imagines her as a little
girl, playing with her dolls. Cheerleader Barbie, Nurse Barbie, Klaus Barbie .
Michael Pompeo
Another pathologically aggressive chickenhawk. In a piece in Foreign Affairs he describes Iran as a "rogue state that America must eliminate
for the sake of all that is good. Note that Pompeo presides over a foreign policy seeking to
destroy Venezuela's economy and threatens military invasion, though Venezuela is no danger to
the US and is not America's business; embargoes Cuba, which in no danger to the US and is not
America's business; seeks to destroy Iran's economy, though Iran is no danger to the US and
none of Americas business; sanctions Europe and meddles in its politics; sanctions Russia,
which is not a danger to the United States, in an attempt to destroy its economy, pushes NATO
up to Russia's borders, abandons the INF arms-control treaty and establishes a Space Command
which will mean nuclear weapons on hair trigger in orbit, starts another nuclear arms race;
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress; sanctions North
Korea; continues a seventeen-year policy of killing Afghans for no discernible purpose; wages a
war against Syria; bombs Somalis; maintains unwanted occupation forces in Iraq; increasingly
puts military forces in Africa; supports regimes with ghastly human-rights records such as
Saudi Arabia and Israel; and looks for a war with China in the South China Sea, which is no
more America's business than the Gulf of Mexico is China's.
But Pompeo is not a loon, oh no, and America is not a rogue state. Perish forfend.
Nikki Haley
A negligible twit -- I choose my vowel carefully -- but characterized, like Trump, PJ, and
Pompeo Mattis
"After being promoted to lieutenant general, Mattis took command of Marine Corps Combat
Development Command. On February 1, 2005, speaking at a forum in San Diego, he said "You go
into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a
veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun
to shoot them. Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun
to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."
Perhaps in air-to-air combat you want someone who regards killing as fun, or in an
amphibious assault. But in a position to make policy? Can you image Dwight Eisenhower talking
about the fun of squaring a man's brains across the ground?
The Upshot
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically
fascinating as now. Again, it is not a matter of Republicans and Democrats. No administration
of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively toward war with so many
countries. These people are not right in the head.
I remember in high school one of my teachers stating how weird it seems that it would be the
leadership of the US military who would call for the American government to intervene less in
the affairs of other countries and to not be so quick to use military force. This was, of
course, decades ago.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with one of my colleages. He remarked how scary it
was that so many American politicians were calling for war with Russia (with Hillary Clinton
leading the pack?). I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought
in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth (Vietnam).
Fred is absolutely correct: the current administration is pathological & insane.
However, it's worth remembering that their insane behavior is based on the same Imperial
goals that have been in play since at least 1945.
The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive &
inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation.
The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's &
naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer
competitors.
China & Russia are real novelties -- & as such, damn scary. Taken together, they
are near equal military & economic rivals of the US.
To US elites this is almost incomprehensible. How ? How did China suddenly become leaders
in cutting edge tech? How did Russia suddenly appear with hypersonsic missiles ?
It's impossible ! Given the already existing moral & psychological inadequacies of
individual Trump team members, insanity & juvenile behavior are fairly predictable
responses .
The fact that you left Bill Clinton off this list (you know, the president that fired
Tomahawk missiles into the country of Sudan to take attention away from the Lewinsky
hearings, sexually assaulted subordinate women for decades, and spent time banging underage
sex slaves via the Lolita Express, pardons a bunch of Puerto Rican terrorists in 2000 to help
swing PR votes to his bag of shit wife in the New York Senate race and was, oh yeah, a draft
dodger) is pathetic even for you , Kiko. I guess NAFTA makes up for all that rapey shit, huh?
And when can we expect a detailed critique of the Mexican political climate, Kiko? Is it
still never? A little too worried about that knock on the door if you bring up all the
inconvenient murder going on down there, and all of the gutless politicians and law
enforcement that turn a blind eye to it, you insufferable hypocrite?
No administration of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively
toward war with so many countries. These people are not right in the head.
Now there, I will certainly agree with Mr. Reed, but in a qualified way. The Trump
administration is somewhat more warlike and interventionist in its talk than previous ones
have been. But, so far, all talk (except for its repudiation of the Iran nuclear deal, which
is ominous).
Also, even in terms of the bellicose hot air, the current regime's increase over its
predecessors is a matter of degree, not of kind. Even the increase itself I'd call
incremental.
Also, I wrote, "So far, all talk." That doesn't mean I'm not concerned. As the man who
jumped off a skyscraper said, when passing the 2nd floor, "All right so far!"
So what's the difference between Trump's neocons and the neocons who would have run Hillary?
Nothing. There is no one more chicken hawkish, and slavish to Israel than Hillary.
Give Trump some credit. He tried to ease ties with Russia and end war in Syria. But look how
the Jewish supremacists in media and Deep State goons all jumped on him. And almost no one in
the Establishment came to his side.
Obama and his goons pushed the Russia Collusion Hoax. Obama and Bush II have more in
common.
@Sean
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress
"About time too. Nixon deciding the US would getting pally with China was a hostile act as
far as Russia was concerned."
Exactly right. Glad someone else remembers things as they were. Getting pally with China
will turn out to be the most disastrous mistake the USA has ever made in foreign policy.
Arrogantly thinking that we could make them our junior partners we have given or sold them
everything which made us great. Our industries, technology, patents, education at premier
research institutions etc. Now, utilizing everything we provided them, they will surpass and
then suppress us. Meanwhile our ignorant politicians, blinded by traitorous, dual-citizen
economists and bankers who promised a new economy based upon finance and "information", plod
along, single file, to oblivion.
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a
real-estate con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in
fury at this.
Most of us knew that Trump is a flawed man but were willing to overlook that because he
was the only one talking sense on immigration and offering solutions that would benefit white
America. Of course, after two years Trump has been all tweet and little action on immigration
and appears poised to sell out out to Javanka, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers and the
Business Roundtable.
He's narcissistic and a bit of a con man but not profoundly ignorant. Profoundly ignorant
people don't become billionaires and will themselves to the presidency.
Trump has done a 180 on his campaign foreign policy and filled his administration with
Israel first neocon retreads from the George W. Bush era instead of America firsters. People
like Bolton deserve all the hate and condemnation heaped upon them by Fredrico.
Fredrico just hates Trump because he doesn't worship Mexico and Mexicans like Fredrico
does and spoke the truth about many Mexican illegals being predisposed to violent crime.
Fredrico and his hispandering Bobbsey twin Ron Unz get easily triggered at the slightest
criticism of hispanics, even if based in fact, and fly into a foaming at the mouth rage.
@KenH
The first priority of any president is staying alive, which probably explains why every US
president, including Donald Trump ends up doing the exact opposite of what they promise on
the campaign trail. As to Trump's neocon advisors, I suspect they were appointed by the deep
state, with him having no say in the matter.
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically fascinating as now.
Appointment on Bolton essentially confirms Fred Reed diagnose of Trump: "profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law.
Notable quotes:
"... I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth ..."
"... The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive & inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation. The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's & naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer competitors. ..."
American government has become a collection of sordid and dangerous clowns. It was not
always thus. Until Bush II, those governing were never lunatics. Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy,
Johnson, Nixon, Obama, Clinton had their defects, were sometimes corrupt, and could be
disagreed with on many grounds. They weren't crazy. Today's administration would seem
unwholesome in a New York bus station at three in the morning. They are not normal American
politicians.
In particular they seem to be pushing for war with Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela. And
-- this is important -- their behavior is not a matter of liberals catfighting with
conservatives. All former presidents carefully avoided war with the Soviet Union, which
carefully avoided war with America.
It was Reagan, a conservative and responsible president,
who negotiated the INF treaty, to eliminate short-fuse nuclear weapons from Europe. By
contrast, Trump is scrapping it. Pat Buchanan, the most conservative man I have met, strongly
opposes aggression against Russia. The problem with the current occupants of the White House is
not that they are conservatives, if they are. It is that they are nuts.
Donald the Cockatoo
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a real-estate
con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in fury at this.
All politics being herd politics, the population has coalesced into herds fanatically pro-Trump
and fanatically anti-Trump. Yet Trump's past is not a secret. Well-documented biographies
describe his behavior in detail, but his supporters don't read them. The following is a bit
long, but worth reading.
"I always get even," Trump writes in the opening line of that chapter. He then launches
into an attack on the same woman he had denounced in Colorado. Trump recruited the unnamed
woman "from her government job where she was making peanuts," her career going nowhere. "I
decided to make her somebody. I gave her a great job at the Trump Organization, and over time
she became powerful in real estate. She bought a beautiful home.
"When Trump was in financial trouble in the early nineties .."I asked her to make a phone
call to an extremely close friend of hers who held a powerful position at a big bank and
would have done what she asked. She said, "Donald, I can't do that." Instead of accepting
that the woman felt that such a call would be inappropriate, Trump fired her. She started her
own business. Trump writes that her business failed. "I was really happy when I found that
out," he says.
"She had turned on me after I did so much to help her. I had asked her to do me a favor in
return, and she turned me down flat. She ended up losing her home. Her husband, who was only
in it for the money, walked out on her and I was glad. Over the years many people have called
me asking for a recommendation for her. I always gave her bad recommendation. I can't stomach
disloyalty. ..and now I go out of my way to make her life miserable."
All that because (if she exists) she declined to engage in corruption for the Donald. That
is your President. A draft dodger, a pampered rich kid, and Ivy brat (Penn, Wharton). This
increasingly is a pattern at the top: Ivy, money, no military service.
A particularly loathsome sort of politician is one who dodges his country's wars when of
military age, and then wants to send others to die in later wars. This is Pussy John, arch
hawk, coward, amoral, bully, willing to kill any number while he prances martially in
Washington. Speaking as one who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, I would like to confine this
fierce darling for life in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda.
Pussy John, an Ivy flower (Yale) wrote in a reunion books that, during the 1969 Vietnam War
draft lottery, "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered
the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton explained that he decided to avoid
service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me
that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no
great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to
take it away from."
This same Pussy John, unwilling to risk his valuable being in a war he could have attended,
now wants war with Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Syria, and Afghanistan. In these wars millions
would die while he waggled his silly lip broom in the West Wing. His truculence is pathological
and dangerous.
Here is PJ on
Iran: which has not harmed and does not threaten America: "We think the government is under
real pressure and it's our intention to squeeze them very hard," Bolton said Tuesday in
Singapore. "As the British say, 'squeeze them until the pips squeak'."
How very brave of him. He apparently feels sadistic delight at starving Venezuelans,
inciting civil war, and ruining the lives of millions who have done nothing wrong. Whence the
weird hostility of this empty jockstrap, the lack of humanity? Forgot his Midiol? Venezuela of
course has done nothing to the US and couldn't if it wanted to. America under the Freak Show is
destroying another country simply because it doesn't meekly obey. While PJ gloats.
Bush II
Another rich kid and Yalie, none too bright, amoral as the rest, another draft dodger, (he
hid in the Air National Guard.) who got to the White House on daddy's name recognition. Not
having the balls to fight in his own war, he presided over the destruction of Iraq and the
killing of hundreds of thousands, for no reason. (Except oil, Israel, and Empire. Collectively,
these amount to no reason.) He then had the effrontery to pose on the deck of an aircraft
carrier and say, "Mission accomplished." You know, just like Alexander the Great. Amoral. No
empathy. What a man.
The striking pattern of the Ivy League avoiding the war confirmed then, as it does now, that
our present rulers regard the rest of America as beings of a lower order. These armchair John
Waynes might have called them "deplorables," though Hillary, another Yalie bowwow hawk, had not
yet made the contempt explicit. This was the attitude of Pussy John, Bushy-Bushy Two, and
Cockatoo Don. Compare this with the Falklands War in which Prince Andrew did what a country's
leadership should do, but ours doesn't..
Wikipedia: "He (Prince Andrew)
holds the rank of commander and the honorary rank of Vice Admiral (as of February 2015) in the
Royal Navy, in which he served as an active-duty helicopter pilot and instructor and as the
captain of a warship. He saw active service during the Falklands War, flying on multiple
missions including anti-surface warfare, Exocet missile decoy, and casualty evacuation"
The Brits still have class. Compare Andrew with the contents of the Great Double-Wide on
Pennsylvania Avernus.
Gina
A measure of the moral degradation of America: It is the only country that openly and
proudly engages in torture. Many countries do it, of course. We admit it, and maintain torture
prisons around the globe. Now we have a major government official, Gina Haspel, head of the
CIA, a known sadist. "Bloody Gina." Is this who represents us? Would any other country in the
civilized world put a sadist publicly in office?
Think of Gina waterboarding some guy, or standing around and getting off on it. You don't
torture people unless you like it. The guy is tied down, coughing, choking, screaming, begging,
desperate, drowning, and Gina pours more water. The poor bastard vomits, chokes. Gina adds a
little more water .
What kind of woman would do this? Well, Gina's kind obviously. Does she then run off to her
office and lock the door for half an hour? Maybe it starts early. One imagines her as a little
girl, playing with her dolls. Cheerleader Barbie, Nurse Barbie, Klaus Barbie .
Michael Pompeo
Another pathologically aggressive chickenhawk. In a piece in Foreign Affairs he describes Iran as a "rogue state that America must eliminate
for the sake of all that is good. Note that Pompeo presides over a foreign policy seeking to
destroy Venezuela's economy and threatens military invasion, though Venezuela is no danger to
the US and is not America's business; embargoes Cuba, which in no danger to the US and is not
America's business; seeks to destroy Iran's economy, though Iran is no danger to the US and
none of Americas business; sanctions Europe and meddles in its politics; sanctions Russia,
which is not a danger to the United States, in an attempt to destroy its economy, pushes NATO
up to Russia's borders, abandons the INF arms-control treaty and establishes a Space Command
which will mean nuclear weapons on hair trigger in orbit, starts another nuclear arms race;
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress; sanctions North
Korea; continues a seventeen-year policy of killing Afghans for no discernible purpose; wages a
war against Syria; bombs Somalis; maintains unwanted occupation forces in Iraq; increasingly
puts military forces in Africa; supports regimes with ghastly human-rights records such as
Saudi Arabia and Israel; and looks for a war with China in the South China Sea, which is no
more America's business than the Gulf of Mexico is China's.
But Pompeo is not a loon, oh no, and America is not a rogue state. Perish forfend.
Nikki Haley
A negligible twit -- I choose my vowel carefully -- but characterized, like Trump, PJ, and
Pompeo Mattis
"After being promoted to lieutenant general, Mattis took command of Marine Corps Combat
Development Command. On February 1, 2005, speaking at a forum in San Diego, he said "You go
into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a
veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun
to shoot them. Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun
to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."
Perhaps in air-to-air combat you want someone who regards killing as fun, or in an
amphibious assault. But in a position to make policy? Can you image Dwight Eisenhower talking
about the fun of squaring a man's brains across the ground?
The Upshot
We have until recently never had government as aggressive, reckless, or psychiatrically
fascinating as now. Again, it is not a matter of Republicans and Democrats. No administration
of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively toward war with so many
countries. These people are not right in the head.
I remember in high school one of my teachers stating how weird it seems that it would be the
leadership of the US military who would call for the American government to intervene less in
the affairs of other countries and to not be so quick to use military force. This was, of
course, decades ago.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with one of my colleages. He remarked how scary it
was that so many American politicians were calling for war with Russia (with Hillary Clinton
leading the pack?). I remarked how it seemed so strange that many of these hawks never fought
in a war even when they had ample opportunity in their youth (Vietnam).
Fred is absolutely correct: the current administration is pathological & insane.
However, it's worth remembering that their insane behavior is based on the same Imperial
goals that have been in play since at least 1945.
The crazy irresponsibility of Trump's foreign policy is entirely counter productive &
inexcusable, however it's symptomatic of a slowly swelling sense of unconscious desperation.
The reality, the feeling of unconstrained power the US experienced in the 90's &
naughties has gone. The US has slowly woken to the nightmare possibility of real peer
competitors.
China & Russia are real novelties -- & as such, damn scary. Taken together, they
are near equal military & economic rivals of the US.
To US elites this is almost incomprehensible. How ? How did China suddenly become leaders
in cutting edge tech? How did Russia suddenly appear with hypersonsic missiles ?
It's impossible ! Given the already existing moral & psychological inadequacies of
individual Trump team members, insanity & juvenile behavior are fairly predictable
responses .
The fact that you left Bill Clinton off this list (you know, the president that fired
Tomahawk missiles into the country of Sudan to take attention away from the Lewinsky
hearings, sexually assaulted subordinate women for decades, and spent time banging underage
sex slaves via the Lolita Express, pardons a bunch of Puerto Rican terrorists in 2000 to help
swing PR votes to his bag of shit wife in the New York Senate race and was, oh yeah, a draft
dodger) is pathetic even for you , Kiko. I guess NAFTA makes up for all that rapey shit, huh?
And when can we expect a detailed critique of the Mexican political climate, Kiko? Is it
still never? A little too worried about that knock on the door if you bring up all the
inconvenient murder going on down there, and all of the gutless politicians and law
enforcement that turn a blind eye to it, you insufferable hypocrite?
No administration of any party, stripe, or ideology has ever pushed to aggressively
toward war with so many countries. These people are not right in the head.
Now there, I will certainly agree with Mr. Reed, but in a qualified way. The Trump
administration is somewhat more warlike and interventionist in its talk than previous ones
have been. But, so far, all talk (except for its repudiation of the Iran nuclear deal, which
is ominous).
Also, even in terms of the bellicose hot air, the current regime's increase over its
predecessors is a matter of degree, not of kind. Even the increase itself I'd call
incremental.
Also, I wrote, "So far, all talk." That doesn't mean I'm not concerned. As the man who
jumped off a skyscraper said, when passing the 2nd floor, "All right so far!"
So what's the difference between Trump's neocons and the neocons who would have run Hillary?
Nothing. There is no one more chicken hawkish, and slavish to Israel than Hillary.
Give Trump some credit. He tried to ease ties with Russia and end war in Syria. But look how
the Jewish supremacists in media and Deep State goons all jumped on him. And almost no one in
the Establishment came to his side.
Obama and his goons pushed the Russia Collusion Hoax. Obama and Bush II have more in
common.
@Sean
wages a trade war against China intended to prevent its economic progress
"About time too. Nixon deciding the US would getting pally with China was a hostile act as
far as Russia was concerned."
Exactly right. Glad someone else remembers things as they were. Getting pally with China
will turn out to be the most disastrous mistake the USA has ever made in foreign policy.
Arrogantly thinking that we could make them our junior partners we have given or sold them
everything which made us great. Our industries, technology, patents, education at premier
research institutions etc. Now, utilizing everything we provided them, they will surpass and
then suppress us. Meanwhile our ignorant politicians, blinded by traitorous, dual-citizen
economists and bankers who promised a new economy based upon finance and "information", plod
along, single file, to oblivion.
Start with the head cheese, Donald Trump, profoundly ignorant, narcissistic, a
real-estate con man who danced just out of reach of the law. His supporters will explode in
fury at this.
Most of us knew that Trump is a flawed man but were willing to overlook that because he
was the only one talking sense on immigration and offering solutions that would benefit white
America. Of course, after two years Trump has been all tweet and little action on immigration
and appears poised to sell out out to Javanka, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers and the
Business Roundtable.
He's narcissistic and a bit of a con man but not profoundly ignorant. Profoundly ignorant
people don't become billionaires and will themselves to the presidency.
Trump has done a 180 on his campaign foreign policy and filled his administration with
Israel first neocon retreads from the George W. Bush era instead of America firsters. People
like Bolton deserve all the hate and condemnation heaped upon them by Fredrico.
Fredrico just hates Trump because he doesn't worship Mexico and Mexicans like Fredrico
does and spoke the truth about many Mexican illegals being predisposed to violent crime.
Fredrico and his hispandering Bobbsey twin Ron Unz get easily triggered at the slightest
criticism of hispanics, even if based in fact, and fly into a foaming at the mouth rage.
@KenH
The first priority of any president is staying alive, which probably explains why every US
president, including Donald Trump ends up doing the exact opposite of what they promise on
the campaign trail. As to Trump's neocon advisors, I suspect they were appointed by the deep
state, with him having no say in the matter.
Just one more to a long list of Trump appointments. I believe Trump is some kind of pervert, like the ones that like
to get whipped, only Trump likes to get stabbed in the back. XXX , 34 minutes ago
He does what Sheldon and Bibi tell him.
You think you're so ******* smart, but this some how eludes you?
YYY, 3 hours ago (Edited)
Donald Trump's House of Cons, Clowns, Crappolas, Criminals, and Conspirators:
Yes. Not an "insurance policy" for overturning the election. But I'd say that how they
used the dossier was exactly how they intended to use it:
- to get wiretaps from the FISA court;
- to poison Trump campaign media relations;
- to justify a cloud of suspicion (17 intelligence agencies agree!) over the Trump
Administration that prompts a special council investigation after Trump fires Comey.
But there is a more basic problem with your analysis: You think personalities
matter. You think it is absurd that the establishment would choose Trump as President over
Hillary. That is their firewall. What you and millions of others think is impossible is a
lever for manipulation/psyop. Constitutional lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama can be
nothing but good! Western democracies are trustworthy! Well funded humanitarian organizations
working in a war zone are heros! Etc.
(Repeating:) MAGA is a Deep State/establishment POLICY CHOICE as much as it is Trump's
campaign slogan. A populist nationalist is exactly what they wanted to lead the Empire
(just as a populist socialist was what was wanted when Obama was elected.) Trump
"unlikely" win was conveniently pinned on the Russians and Wikileaks.
How else does one explain Trump's Deep State/establishment nominations that further the
agenda of people that are supposedly against Trump:
VP PenceBesties with McCain
John BoltonMost neocons are 'Never Trump' (or pretend to be)
Gina HaspelBrennan's acolyte
William BarrLong time friend of Bushes, Mueller, and Comey (Comey is
Mueller's pal)
Big brass and government executives play both sides of the military revolving door,
including "the only adult in the room."
Before he became lionized as the "only adult in the room" capable of standing up to
President Trump, General James Mattis was quite like any other brass scoping out a lucrative
second career in the defense industry. And as with other military giants parlaying their four
stars into a cushy boardroom chair or executive suite, he pushed and defended a sub-par product
while on both sides of the revolving door. Unfortunately for everyone involved, that contract
turned out to be an expensive fraud and a potential health hazard to the troops.
According to a
recent report by the Project on Government Oversight, 25 generals, nine admirals, 43
lieutenant generals, and 23 vice admirals retired to become lobbyists, board members,
executives, or consultants for the defense industry between 2008 and 2018. They are part of a
much larger group of 380 high-ranking government officials and congressional staff who shifted
into the industry in that time.
To get a sense of the demand, according to POGO, which had to compile all of this
information through Freedom of Information requests, there were 625 instances in 2018 alone in
which the top 20 defense contractors (think Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin) hired
senior DoD officials for high-paying jobs -- 90 percent of which could be described as
"influence peddling."
Back to Mattis. In 2012, while he was head of Central Command, the Marine General
pressed the Army to procure and deploy blood testing equipment from a Silicon Valley
company called Theranos. He communicated that he was having success with this effort directly
to Theranos's chief executive officer. Even though an Army health unit tried to terminate the
contract due to it's not meeting requirements, according to POGO, Mattis kept the pressure up.
Luckily, it was never used on the
battlefield.
Maybe it shouldn't be a surprise but upon retirement in 2013, Mattis asked a DoD counsel
about the ethics guiding future employment with Theranos. They advised against it. So Mattis
went to serve on its board instead for a $100,000 salary. Two years after Mattis quit to serve
as Trump's Pentagon chief in 2016, the two Theranos executives he worked with were indicted for
"massive"
fraud , perpetuating a "multi-million dollar scheme to defraud investors, doctors and
patients," and misrepresenting their product entirely. It was a fake.
But assuming this was Mattis's only foray into the private sector would be naive. When he
was tapped for defense secretary -- just three years after he left the military -- he was worth
upwards of $10 million . In addition to his retirement pay, which was close to $15,000 a
month at the time, he received $242,000 as a board member, plus as much as $1.2 million in
stock options in General Dynamics, the Pentagon's fourth largest contractor. He also disclosed
payments from other corporate boards, speech honorariums -- including $20,000 from defense
heavyweight Northrop Grumman -- and a whopping $410,000 from Stanford University's public
policy think tank the Hoover Institution for serving as a "distinguished visiting fellow."
Never for a moment think that Mattis won't land softly after he leaves Washington -- if he
leaves at all. Given his past record, he will likely follow a very long line, as illustrated by
POGO's explosive report, of DoD officials who have used their positions while inside the
government to represent the biggest recipients of federal funding on the outside. They then
join ex-congressional staffers and lawmakers on powerful committees who grease the skids on
Capitol Hill. And then they go to work for the very companies they've helped, fleshing out a
small army of executives, lobbyists, and board members with direct access to the power brokers
with the purse strings back on the inside.
Welcome to the Swamp
"[Mattis's' career course] is emblematic of how systemic the problem is," said Mandy
Smithberger, POGO's lead on the report and the director of its Center for Defense
Information.
"Private companies know how to protect their interests. We just wish there were more
protections for taxpayers."
When everything is engineered to get more business for the same select few, "when you have
a Department of Defense who sees it as their job to promote arms sales does this really serve
the interest of national security?"
That is something to chew on. If a system is so motivated by personal gain (civil servants
always mindful of campaign contributions and private sector job prospects) on one hand, and big
business profits on the other, is there room for merit or innovation? One need only look at
Lockheed's F-35 joint strike fighter, the most expensive
weapon system in history, which was relentlessly promoted over other programs by members of
Congress and within the Pentagon despite years of test failures and cost overruns , to see what
this gets you: planes that don't fly, weapons that don't work, and shortfalls in other parts of
the budget that don't matter to contractors like pilot training and maintenance of existing
systems.
"It comes down to two questions," Smithberger noted in an interview with TAC.
" Are we approving weapons systems that are safe or not? And are we putting
[servicemembers'] lives on the line" to benefit the interests of industry?
All of this is legal, she points out. Sure, there are rules -- "cooling off" periods before
government officials and members of Congress can lobby, consult, or work on contracts after
they leave their federal positions, or when industry people come in through the other side to
take positions in government. But Smithberger said they are "riddled with loopholes" and lack
of enforcement.
Case in point: current acting DoD Secretary Patrick Shanahan spent
31 years working for Boeing , which gets about $24 billion a year as the Pentagon's second
largest contractor. He was Boeing's senior vice president in 2016 just before he was confirmed
as Trump's deputy secretary of defense in 2017. Last week he recused himself from all matters
Boeing, but he
wasn't always so hands off. At one point, he "prodded" for the purchase of 12 $1.2 billion
Boeing F-15X fighter planes, according to Bloomberg.
But the revolving door is so much more pervasive and insidious than POGO could possibly
catalogue. So says Franklin "Chuck" Spinney , who worked
as a civilian and military officer in the Pentagon for 31 years, beginning in 1968. He calls
the military industrial complex a "quasi-isolated political economy" that is in many ways
independent from the larger domestic economy. It has its own rules, norms, and culture, and
unlike the real world, it is self-sustaining -- not by healthy competition and efficiency, but
by keeping the system on a permanent war footing, with money always pumping from Capitol Hill
to the Pentagon to the private sector and then back again. Left out are basic laws of supply
and demand, geopolitical realities, and the greater interest of society.
"That's why we call it a self-licking ice cream cone," Spinney explained to TAC.
" [This report] is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot more subtle stuff going on.
When you are in weapons development like I was at the beginning of my career, you learn about
this on day one, that having cozy relationships with contractors is openly encouraged. And
then you get desensitized. I was fortunate because I worked for people who did not like it
and I caught on quickly."
While the culture has evolved, basic realities have persisted since the massive build-up of the military
and weapons systems during the Cold War. The odds of young officers in the Pentagon making
colonel or higher are slim. They typically retire out in their 40s. They know implicitly that
their best chance for having a well-paid second career is in the only industry they know --
defense. Most take this calculation seriously, moderating their decisions on program work and
procurement and communicating with members of Congress as a matter of course.
" Let's just say there's a problem [with a program]. Are you going to come down hard on a
contractor and try to hold his feet to the fire? Are you going to risk getting blackballed
when you are out there looking for a job ? Sometimes there is no word communicated, you just
don't want to be unacceptable to anyone," said Spinney. It's ingrained, from the rank of
lieutenant colonel all the way up to general.
So the
top five and their subsidiaries continue to get the vast majority of work, usually in
no-bid contracts
($100 billion worth in 2016 alone) , and with cost-plus structures that
critics say encourage waste and never-ending timetables, like the $1.5 trillion F-35. "The
whole system is wired to get money out the door," said Spinney. "That is where the revolving
door is most pernicious. It's everywhere."
The real danger is that under this pressure, parties work to keep bad contracts alive even
if they have to cook the books. "Essentially from the standpoint of Pentagon contracting you
are not going to have people writing reports saying this product is a piece of shit," said
Spinney. Worse, evaluations are designed to deflect criticism if not oversell success in order
to keep the spigot open. The most infamous example of this was the
rigged tests that kept the ill-fated "Star Wars" missile defense program going in the
1980s.
* * *
Everyone talks about generals like Mattis as though they're warrior-gods. But for decades,
many of them have turned out to be different creatures altogether - creatures of a
semi-independent ecosystem that operates outside of the normal rules and benefits only a
powerful minority subset: the military elite, defense contractors, and Congress. More recently,
the defense-funded think tank world has become part of this ecology, providing the ideological
grist for more spending and serving as a way-station for operators moving in and out of
government and industry.
Call it the Swamp, the Borg, or even the Blob, but attempting to measure or quantify the
revolving door in the military-industrial complex can feel like a fool's errand. Groups like
POGO have attempted to shine light on this dark planet for years. Unfortunately, there is
little incentive in Capitol Hill or at the Pentagon to do the very least: pull the purse
strings, close loopholes, encourage real competition, and end cost-plus practices.
"We generally need to see more (political) championing on this issue," Smithberger said.
Until then, all outside efforts "can't result in any meaningful change."
So tell me again how "Mad Pedo" evaded Obama's axing of all the non-compliant General(s)
and Admiral(s) in charge of the U.S. strategic command?!!!
Answered my own question. He's like the rest of them since the Balkans that just does
counter insurgencies!...
"SUCCESS" in every direction on the weather vane you look!!!
Or... Another way of saying it.
How to build your successful U.S. military career turning $8 trillion in unfunded
liability debt into $200 trillion in unfunded liability debt in less than 20 years!
Who wants to line up for that 'self help book"?!!!
Mattis is just another self serving cockroach in a U.S uniform.
__name___3O4jF">Realname Wild tree , 31 minutes ago
link
It has nothing to do with the defense of our nation, or the unnecessary spilling of the
blood of our nation.
It has everything to do with greed at the expense of our youths blood and the nations
security. Follow the money.
As the light of truth shines as this article illustrates, the cockroaches scurry.
Rumsfield's DoD 2 trillion missing comment the day before 9/11 comes to mind. Wonder how he
knew.......
It has nothing to do with the defense of our nation, or the unnecessary spilling of the
blood of our nation.
It has everything to do with greed at the expense of our youths blood and the nations
security. Follow the money.
As the light of truth shines as this article illustrates, the cockroaches scurry.
Rumsfield's DoD 2 trillion missing comment the day before 9/11 comes to mind. Wonder how he
knew.......
Numerous MSM articles appear about Trump's standing up to the Generals: Mattis, Kelly, Dunford, etc. Yet Bolton feels free to
conspire against the President's agenda? The narrative that Trump is fighting for his campaign promises, but allows Bolton and
Pompeo to scheme against him does not make any sense.
A more realistic take is that rump is a faux populist. He is the Republican Obama - pretending to be a populist
peacemaker while working for the establishment. The "populist hero" is a gimmick that reinforces people's belief in USA democracy
and the righteousness of USA actions. The Trump/Deep-State conflict is a propaganda psy-op.
The major inconsistency here is why the Deep State is hell bent of deposing him. Is The Trump/Deep-State conflict
is a propaganda psy-op? I do no not think so.
Trump is certainly a 'faux populist' as all right wing populists are: promises to the people while promoting the interests of
the 1%. But there is a genuine struggle going on within the ruling class due to the crisis of neoliberal governance. The world is
a complex place and Washington's influence is declining. No surprise that parts of the US elite that got used to "full spectrum
dominance" are panicking. And it is all real.
Notable quotes:
"... "The president's statement offered the latest illustration of the dramatic gyrations that have characterized his foreign policy and fueled questions about whether his senior advisers are implementing his policies or pursuing their own agendas." ..."
"... Here we have the question asked, in effect: Are Trump's senior people going rogue? Does the master of spin Washington Post, by putting the question in a manner sympathetic to Trump and unsympathetic to Bolton and Pompeo, and by extension the hordes denouncing Trump's decision to reduce US involvement in Syria suggest a new orientation in the Mockingbird media? ..."
The Washington Post article that b links to ("never signed off") has the headline " 'They
can do what they want' Trump's Iran comments defy his top aids"
The "They" in the quote in the headline is a reference to Iran in Syria. "President Trump
stuck a dagger in a major initiative advanced by his foreign policy team:
Iran's leaders, the president said, "can do what they want" in Syria.
With a stray remark, Trump snuffed out a plan from his national security adviser, John
Bolton, who this fall vowed that the United States would not leave Syria
"as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders." Pompeo has of course also obsessed
over Iran.
Now the next paragraph in the WP piece is I think quite remarkable: "The president's
statement offered the latest illustration of the dramatic gyrations that have characterized
his foreign policy and fueled questions about whether his senior advisers are implementing
his policies or pursuing their own agendas."
Here we have the question asked, in effect: Are Trump's senior people going rogue? Does
the master of spin Washington Post, by putting the question in a manner sympathetic to Trump
and unsympathetic to Bolton and Pompeo, and by extension the hordes denouncing Trump's
decision to reduce US involvement in Syria
suggest a new orientation in the Mockingbird media?
Also note that acting Defense Sec Patrick Shanahan, who was injected immediately into his
position when Trump gave Mattis the boot, is becoming part of the strategic scene.
From the NYT: "He is the brightest and smartest guy I worked with at Boeing," said Carolyn
Corvi, a former executive at the company. "He has the ability to see over the horizon and
{implement needed change]."
"Ana Mari Cauce, the president of University of Washington, worked with Mr. Shanahan ....
She said his outsider perspective was helpful in questioning old practices,
forcing people to look at problems in different ways."
"... Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer before working as a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. Ray admits to a modicum of bias against Marine officers, but not those with whom he worked back in the day. He is co-creator of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes Marines who remember what Semper Fi means. ..."
"... A case in point is when you hear members of congress criticize Trump decision to withdraw the US army personals from Syria and Afganistan. These members forget that the US army in Syria is in violation of international laws and US laws as well. ..."
utgoing Defense Secretary Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis was famous for quipping , "It's fun to shoot some
people." It remains a supreme irony that Mattis was widely considered the only "adult in the
room" in the Trump administration. Compared to whom? John Bolton, the rabid neocon serving as
national security adviser? That would be the epitome of "condemning with faint praise."
With his ramrod-straight image, not to mention his warrior/scholar reputation extolled in
the media, Mattis was able to disguise the reality that he was, as Col. Andrew Bacevich
put it on
Democracy Now! this morning, "totally unimaginative." Meaning that Mattis was simply incapable
of acknowledging the self-destructive, mindless nature of U.S. "endless war" in the Middle
East, which candidate-Trump had correctly called "stupid." In his resignation letter, Mattis
also peddled the usual cant about the indispensable nation's aggression being good for the
world.
Mattis was an obstacle to Trump's desire to pull troops out of Syria and Afghanistan (and
remains in position to spike Trump's orders). Granted, the abrupt way Trump announced his
apparently one-man decision was equally stupid. But the withdrawal of ground troops is
supremely sane, and Mattis was and is a large problem. And, for good or ill, Trump -- not
Mattis -- was elected president.
Marine Wisdom
Historically, Marines are the last place to turn for sound advice. Marine Gen. Smedley
Butler (1881-1940), twice winner of the Medal of Honor, was brutally candid about this after he
paused long enough to realize, and write, "War is a Racket":
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members
of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My
mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-
ups. "
Shortly after another Marine general, former CENTCOM commander Anthony Zinni, retired, he
stood by silently as he personally watched then-Vice President Dick Cheney give his most
important speech ever (on August 26, 2002). Cheney blatantly lied about Iraq's (non-existent)
WMD, in order to grease the skids for the war of aggression against Iraq. Zinni had kept his
clearances and was "back on contract." He was well read-in on Iraq, and knew immediately that
Cheney was lying.
A few years later, Zinni admitted that he decided that his lips would be sealed. Far be it
for a Marine to play skunk at the picnic. And, after all, he was being honored that day at the
same Veterans of Foreign Wars convention where Cheney spoke. As seems clear now, Zinni was also
lusting after the lucrative spoils of war given to erstwhile generals who offer themselves for
membership on the corporate Boards of the arms makers/merchants that profiteer on war.
Marine officer, now Sen. Pat Roberts, R, Kansas, merits "dishonorable mention" in this
connection. He never rose to general but did become Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee
at an auspicious time for Cheney and Bush. Roberts kowtowed, like a "good Marine," to their
crass deceit, when a dollop of honesty on his part could have prevented the 2003 attack on Iraq
and the killing, maiming, destruction, and chaos that continues to this day. Roberts knew all
about the fraudulent intelligence and covered it up -- together with other lies -- for as long
as he remained Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman
Scott Ritter on Pat Roberts
Roberts's unconscionable dereliction of duty enraged one honest Marine, Maj. Scott Ritter,
who believes "Semper Fi" includes an obligation to tell the truth on matters of war and peace.
Ritter, former UN chief weapons inspector for Iraq, who in April 2005 wrote, "Semper Fraud,
Senator Roberts," based partly on his own experience
with that complicit Marine.
Needless to say, higher ranking, more malleable Marines aped Zinni in impersonating Uncle
Remus's Tar Baby -- not saying nuttin'.
It is conceivable that yet another sharply-saluting Marine, departing Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, may be tapped by Trump to take Mattis's job. If that happens,
it will add to President Trump's bizarre penchant for picking advisers hell-bent on frustrating
the objectives he espoused when he was running for office, some of which -- it is becoming
quite clear -- he genuinely wants to achieve.
Trump ought to unleash Mattis now, and make sure Mattis keeps his distance from the Pentagon
and the Military-Industrial Complex before he is asked to lead an insurrection against a highly
vulnerable president -- as Gen. Smedley Butler was asked to do back in the day. Butler said
no.
Top Photo | U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, sits on stage during a change of command
ceremony at the U.S. Southern Command headquarters on Nov. 26, 2018, in Doral, Fla. Brynn
Anderson | AP
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church
of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer before
working as a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. Ray admits to a modicum of bias against Marine
officers, but not those with whom he worked back in the day. He is co-creator of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes Marines who remember what Semper Fi
means.
I am not so much surprised that military generals keep their mouths shot rather than tell
the truth when the truth is needed to avoid wars. But worse is that the US congress which are
supposed to overlook over the government misbehavior to make the government abide by the laws
and protect the interests of the people against government wrongs.
A case in point is when you hear members of congress criticize Trump decision to
withdraw the US army personals from Syria and Afganistan. These members forget that the US
army in Syria is in violation of international laws and US laws as well.
The congress are supposed the authority to declare war but the US is engaged in multiple
wars without US Congress authorization. Worse off these idiots want to force the Trump
administration to keep its illegal wars going on? What is the role of the congress??? To
correct and force the Administration to abide by the rule of laws of the force them to keep
violating international laws and US laws as well????
Trump's bizarre penchant for picking advisers hell-bent on frustrating the objectives
he espoused when he was running for office
It's bizarre that he's hired so many Bill Kristol approved neocons when they abandoned him
for Hillary in 2016. Or not so bizarre when one remembers what Russ Tice said about Cheney
using the NSA to get blackmail dirt. Now they've lost control, so it will be interesting to
see how they try to regain it.
"... The Defense Department under Mattis became more opaque and less accountable to the public and Congress. He presided over two years of shameful support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and he went out of his way to offer absurd justifications for continued U.S. support for the war to the end of his tenure. ..."
"... No less than Secretary Pompeo, Mattis discredited himself in the desperate, unsuccessful effort to derail S.J.Res. 54. An administration that fights as hard as this has to keep the war on Yemen going is definitely not one interested in peace and restraint no matter what else happens. ..."
Officials said Mr. Mattis went to the White House on Thursday afternoon with his
resignation letter already written, but nonetheless made a last attempt at persuading Mr.
Trump to reverse his decision about Syria, which the president announced on Wednesday over
the objections of his senior advisers.
Mr. Mattis, a retired four-star Marine general, was rebuffed. Returning to the Pentagon,
he asked aides to print out 50 copies of his resignation letter and distribute them around
the building.
Mattis' departure from the administration after the midterms had been floated as a
possibility for months, but I don't think anyone seriously expected him to resign suddenly over
a policy disagreement with the president. It is telling and not to Mattis' credit that ending
an illegal war in Syria was the one policy disagreement with Trump that Mattis couldn't
stomach. The Defense Secretary had repeatedly disagreed with Trump on a range of issues, and he
usually lost the internal debate. The only times that he prevailed with Trump were when he
advised him to escalate ongoing U.S. wars, and his influence had waned enough that he couldn't
get his way on that, either. I was extremely
skeptical that a Syria withdrawal would actually happen. Now that Mattis has tried and
failed to reverse that decision, I have to acknowledge that I overestimated the ability of
Trump's advisers to change his mind.
The Defense Department under Mattis became more opaque and less accountable to the
public and Congress. He presided over two years of shameful support for the Saudi coalition war
on Yemen, and he went out of his way to offer absurd justifications for continued U.S. support
for the war to the end of his tenure. The disagreement over Syria will dominate coverage
of Mattis' resignation, but it is important to remember that when it came to the most
indefensible U.S.-backed war he and Trump were always on the same page. No less than
Secretary Pompeo, Mattis discredited himself in the desperate, unsuccessful effort to derail
S.J.Res. 54. An administration that fights as hard as this has to keep the war on Yemen going
is definitely not one interested in peace and restraint no matter what else happens.
As wrong as Mattis was on a number of foreign policy issues, there is a real danger that his
successor could be far worse. Even if Trump doesn't nominate a Tom Cotton or Lindsey Graham,
the next Defense Secretary is very likely to be a yes-man in the mold of Mike Pompeo. Almost
every time that Trump has replaced his top national security officials, he has chosen someone
who will flatter and praise him instead of telling him the truth and giving him the best
advice.
The next Defense Secretary is less likely to resist Trump's belligerent tendencies, and he
is more likely to indulge the president's worst impulses. Just as Pompeo has proven to be a
worse Secretary of State than Tillerson, Mattis' successor will very likely prove to be an
inferior Secretary of Defense.
You're right to fear what may replace him, especially after the disgusting Pompeo replaced
the decent but ineffectual Tillerson, but I'm glad Mattis is gone, especially if he quit over
the Syria decision, a no-brainer which should have been made two years ago.
It's hard to imagine anyone being worse than he was. Sadly, we may not have to imagine
it.
There's also the danger that the elites and establishment will now escalate their efforts to
remove him from office.
I've disagreed with Trump about many things, and I don't like the man, but I still trust
him more than the corrupt incompetents and foreign agents who dragged us into these Middle
East hellholes.
That is the terrible and ongoing damage that must be stopped.
But now that Trump has made a move in the direction of winding it down, you will almost
certainly see the fury and resentment of the elites and establishment redoubled. From their
point of view, the only thing worse than a Trump who doesn't keep his campaign promises is
one who does.
His next appointee will be no better and more than likely worse, a crafty Neocon who will
bite their tongue when they disagree with Trump in order to remain so that he can encourage
his worst tendencies. Bolton is a stellar example of this.
If he appoints someone like Cotton or Gen Jack Keane then Trump will be the last adult in
the room.
My SWAG, and this is merely SWAG, is that, since his election, Trump has given the neocons
everything they wanted or asked for, but he still is allowed any freedom of action.
In spite of governing much like a garden variety Republican, his enemies are still looking
for any excuse to remove him.
This is Trump reminding his enemies that he can do lots of things to upset the apple cart,
so cut him some slack, already.
"... You want to know what those casualty numbers tell us? American forces in Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq aren't going outside the wire – off American bases – very often. That's how you stay alive in places like Syria and Afghanistan. You stay away from places where things like IEDs can kill you. And even then, in the comparative safety of American bases, you're not safe, because there are enemy soldiers posing as "friendly" Afghan soldiers who will kill you. ..."
"... This is the nature of the conflicts we're engaged in. You take thousands of American soldiers and send them thousands of miles away from home into combat zones in foreign lands, and you have them do as little as possible so not too many of them get killed. ..."
"... It pains me to say this, but Trump pulling 2,000 soldiers out of Syria and 7,000 soldiers out of Afghanistan is the right thing to do. It might be getting done by a certifiable loon with an orange muskrat on his head, but it's the right thing to do and it should have been done a long time ago. ..."
The arm-waving and hand-flapping and pearl-clutching in the foreign affairs and national
security "communities," not to mention in the Congress and among prominent Democrats, is
something to behold. Significant portions of all those communities have long thought we didn't
have any business being in Syria in the first place. Not to mention fighting our 17th year of
the so-called "war" in Afghanistan, from which Trump intends to remove some 7,000 American
troops...
More than 2,400 American soldiers dead in Afghanistan so far. More than 30,000
Afghan civilians killed. Sixty percent of Afghan districts under control of the Taliban. Opium
production at an "all-time high." Dozens, sometimes hundreds of Afghan soldiers killed every
single week. You thought Vietnam was a misbegotten military misadventure? How about 17 years in
Afghanistan with no end in sight? Hell, opium production was said to be at an "all-time high"
when I was in the Kunar River Valley in Afghanistan in 2004. That's 14 years ago, 14 years
of record-setting opium crops!
And what are the pundits saying about our military foray into the morass called Syria?
Listen to what I heard from one "expert" on MSNBC yesterday.
"Syria is a very winnable proposition," this numbskull said, looking gravely at the other
"experts" at the table. "The U.S. presence is actually very small numbers." Two thousand is the
"very small number" this blazer-and-tie wearing "expert" was talking about as he reached for
his "I'm a Pundit on the Katy Tur Show" cup and went on to blather about how "winnable" Syria
is.
Let me tell you what 2,000 soldiers is. It's about the size of a brigade, commanded by a
full colonel. A brigade is typically three to five battalions of 500 to 1,000 soldiers,
commanded by lieutenant colonels. Battalions are made up of three to five companies with around
200 soldiers, commanded by captains. Companies comprise three to four platoons of 40 to 100
soldiers, commanded by second lieutenants. So 2,000 soldiers is about 30 to 40 platoons of
soldiers. I used to command a platoon. I was 22 years old. There were about 40 soldiers in my
platoon. Let me tell you, taking care of 40 soldiers was a big fucking job, and we weren't even
in combat.
Taking care of 2,000 soldiers in a place like Syria with bullets flying and IEDs going off
is a huge fucking job. Taking care of 14,000 soldiers, like we currently have in Afghanistan,
or 7,000 which we'll have when Trump gets finished with his draw-down, is a massive fucking
job.
... ... ...
And now Trump's Last General's feelings are all hurt, because he wasn't consulted about
pulling 2,000 troops out of Syria or 7,000 troops out of Afghanistan. What were those troops
doing in Syria? We don't know, and I don't think Mattis had much of an idea what they were
doing, either.
We can get some idea what they're doing by the number of casualties American forces have
suffered in both places. An American soldier was killed in Manbij, Syria, by a roadside bomb in
March of this year. He was the fourth American killed in Syria since our forces entered the
country in 2014. There have been 18 Americans killed in Afghanistan this year. Eleven were
killed there last year. About half of those killed in Afghanistan have been so-called
"green-on-green" killings, incidents where "friendly" Afghans killed American soldiers, usually
on American bases.
You want to know what those casualty numbers tell us? American forces in Syria,
Afghanistan, or Iraq aren't going outside the wire – off American bases – very
often. That's how you stay alive in places like Syria and Afghanistan. You stay away from
places where things like IEDs can kill you. And even then, in the comparative safety of
American bases, you're not safe, because there are enemy soldiers posing as "friendly" Afghan
soldiers who will kill you.
This is the nature of the conflicts we're engaged in. You take thousands of American
soldiers and send them thousands of miles away from home into combat zones in foreign lands,
and you have them do as little as possible so not too many of them get killed.
It pains me to say this, but Trump pulling 2,000 soldiers out of Syria and 7,000
soldiers out of Afghanistan is the right thing to do. It might be getting done by a certifiable
loon with an orange muskrat on his head, but it's the right thing to do and it should have been
done a long time ago.
Advertisement:
All the talk you're hearing about how we've got to have American forces in this desert or
that mountainous no-man's land as a "counterbalance" to countries like Russia and Iran is
lip-flapping twaddle from the kind of "experts" who got us involved in Iraq, Syria, and
Afghanistan in the first place. They are the same "experts" you didn't hear a peep from when
Mattis stood loyally by Trump as he virtually capitulated to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki,
trashed NATO every chance he got, and sat down for Nuclear Kimchi with Kim Jong Un. Now Mattis
is all "maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies" in his resignation
letter. Talk about a day late and a dollar short, he should call Angela Merkel and ask her how
much "respect" she's felt from the United States lately.
You want to know who can stop the resident of the adult day care center in the White House?
It wasn't Adult in the Room General McMaster. It wasn't Adult in the Room General Kelly. It
wasn't Adult in the Room General Mattis. And it's sure as hell not going to be somebody like
Secretary of Defense Kushner, or whoever the hell Trump decides he's going to sentence to a
padded cell on the E-Ring in the Pentagon next.
Trump can be stopped by Congress. The Congress can cut the funding for our misbegotten
misadventures in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. It can refuse to fund the laughable wall along
our 1,900 mile border with Mexico that Trump apparently thinks 6,000 soldiers can guard in the
meantime. And Congress can impeach and convict Trump's insane clown ass for conspiring with a
foreign nation to defraud the United States of America. Congress can do all of this if
Republicans will stop bowing down before the Orange Hair Helmet and start looking out for the
United States of America.
Just between you and me, we'll wake up tomorrow morning, and even with The Last Adult in the
Room on his way out the door, the Western World will still be here, and so will Trump. Trust
me.
Lucian K. Truscott IV
Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist,
novelist and screenwriter. He has covered stories such as Watergate, the Stonewall riots and
wars in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels and
several unsuccessful motion pictures. He has three children, lives on the East End of Long
Island and spends his time Worrying About the State of Our Nation and madly scribbling in a
so-far fruitless attempt to Make Things Better. He can be followed on Facebook at The Rabbit
Hole and on Twitter @LucianKTruscott.
"... Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis resigned from his position effective February 28. He disagreed with the president's decision. It was the second time in five years that an elected commander in chief had a serious conflict with Mattis' hawkishness. President Obama fired him as Central Command chief for urging a more aggressive Iran policy. Mattis is also extremely hawkish towards Russia and China. ..."
"... Mattis is an ingrained imperialist. He always asked for more money for the military and for more meddling abroad. One of Mattis' little notice acts as Defense Secretary was a unannounced change in the mission of the Pentagon : ..."
"... The Pentagon no longer "deters war" but provides "lethal force" to "sustain American influence abroad." There was no public nor congressional debate about the change. I doubt that President Trump agreed to it. Trump will now try to recruit a defense secretary that is more aligned with his own position. ..."
"... Associated Press ..."
"... Trump did not "capitulate". He always wanted to pull the U.S. troops out of Syria. He said so many times. When he was finally given a chance to do so, he grabbed the opportunity. Erdogan though, was not ready for that: ..."
"... Erdogan had planned to only occupy a 10 miles deep strip along the Syrian-Turkish border. Some 15,000 Turkish controlled 'Syrian rebels' stand ready for that. He would need some 50-100,000 troops to occupy all of east Syria northward of the Euphrates. It would be a hostile occupation among well armed Kurds who would oppose it and an Arab population that is not exactly friendly towards a neo-Ottoman Turkey. ..."
"... Any larger occupation of northeast Syria would create a serious mess for Turkey. Its army can do it, but it would cost a lot of casualties and financial resources. Turkey will hold local government election in March and Erdogan does not want any negative headlines. He will invade, but only if Syria and Russia fail to get the Kurds under control. ..."
"... 'The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our country and sustain American influence abroad."' ..."
"... '"We had decided last week to launch a military incursion... east of the Euphrates river," he said in a speech in Istanbul'. So much for the UN Charter, then. Anyone who wants to can invade any other country and take over as much of its territory as he wants to - as long as Washington agrees. But, as Saddam Hussein could testify if he were still alive, it would be sensible to get such consent in writing. ..."
"... Macron's forces are illegally present too. Assad would have to request their presence, but I really doubt he will given the harm France has done to Syria over the past 7 years. Word is SAA's Tiger Forces will get sent East of Euphrates; when is now the question. ..."
"... One's got to worry about who will replace Mad Dog Mattis after February 28 next year. It would seem that whoever succeeds Mattis will be another former general, likely to share his views on maintaining and increasing US forces in Syria, Iraq and other parts of western Asia ..."
"... Compared to Mattis, Pompeo and Bolton, and now Nauert at the UN, are raving jingos. Thank Gord they have no ties to the US military. ..."
"... "there also a contingent of 1,100 French troops"... You can hear me laughing after reading this. The French empire was over a long long time ago and they still think that Syria is their colony. France has been sending French Jihadists for regime change in Syria since 2011 and their mission has failed since Russia intervened in 2015. France cannot even send troops to Mali - destabilized by Jihadists created by France in Libya to topple Kadhafi, without the help of the US!!! France is a de-facto vassal state of the US since they decided to joined the NATO central command under Sarkozy who was bribed by the zionist neocons. ..."
"... I personally distinguish between Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria and his move to withdraw partially from Afghanistan. The latter is a step towards ending a brutal, illegal NATO occupation war of over 17 years. The former is also illegal but the Syrian Kurds (left wing and largely communist) are likely to be supplanted as counters to "Iran" by fascists Turkey and Israel (this has been confirmed in reports), so we're moving from tactical NATO proxies to actual NATO governments seizing Syrian land. ..."
Fallout Of Trump's Syria Withdrawal - Why Erdogan Does Not Want To Invadeuuu
, Dec 21, 2018 1:37:31 PM |
link
President Trump's
strategic decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria creates some significant fallout.
The U.S. and international borg is enraged that Trump ends an occupation that is illegal
under international as well as U.S. domestic law. "That's un-American!"
Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis
resigned from his position effective February 28. He disagreed with the president's
decision. It was the second time in five years that an elected commander in chief had a
serious conflict with Mattis' hawkishness. President Obama
fired him as Central Command chief for urging a more aggressive Iran policy. Mattis is
also
extremely hawkish towards Russia and China.
President Trump campaigned on lessening U.S. involvement in wars abroad. He wants to get
reelected. He does not need a Secretary of Defense that involves him in more wars that have
little to none defined purpose.
Mattis is an ingrained imperialist. He always asked for more money for the military
and for more meddling abroad. One of Mattis' little notice acts as Defense Secretary was a
unannounced change in the mission of the Pentagon :
For at least two decades, the Department of Defense has explicitly defined its mission on
its website as providing "the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the
security of our country." But earlier this year, it quietly changed that statement, perhaps
suggesting a more ominous approach to national security.
...
The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the
Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our
country and sustain American influence abroad."
The Pentagon no longer "deters war" but provides "lethal force" to "sustain American
influence abroad." There was no public nor congressional debate about the change. I doubt
that President Trump agreed to it. Trump will now try to recruit a defense secretary that is
more aligned with his own position.
The White House also announced that 7,000 of the 14,000 soldier the U.S. has in
Afghanistan will
withdraw over the next few months. The war in Afghanistan is lost with the Taliban ruling
over more than half of the country and the U.S. supported government forces losing more
personal than they can recruit. It was Mattis who had urged Trump to increase the troop
numbers in Afghanistan from 10,000 to 14,000 at the beginning of his term. There are also
8,000 NATO and allied troops in Afghanistan which will likely see a proportional
withdrawal.
The Associated Press has a
new tic toc of Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria:
Trump stunned his Cabinet, lawmakers and much of the world with the move by rejecting the
advice of his top aides and agreeing to a withdrawal in a phone call with Turkish President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan last week, two officials briefed on the matter said.
...
"The talking points were very firm," said one of the officials, explaining that Trump was
advised to clearly oppose a Turkish incursion into northern Syria and suggest the U.S. and
Turkey work together to address security concerns. "Everybody said push back and try to
offer (Turkey) something that's a small win, possibly holding territory on the border,
something like that."
Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had
repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic
State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. "Why are you still there?" the
second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the
remaining IS militants.
...
Erdogan's point, Bolton was forced to admit, had been backed up by Mattis, Pompeo, U.S.
special envoy for Syria Jim Jeffrey and special envoy for the anti-ISIS coalition Brett
McGurk, who have said that IS retains only 1 percent of its territory, the officials
said.
...
Bolton stressed, however, that the entire national security team agreed that victory over
IS had to be enduring, which means more than taking away its territory.
Trump was not dissuaded, according to the officials, who said the president quickly
capitulated by pledging to withdraw, shocking both Bolton and Erdogan.
Trump did not "capitulate". He always wanted to pull the U.S. troops out of Syria. He
said so many times. When he was finally given a chance to do so, he grabbed the opportunity.
Erdogan though, was not ready for that:
Caught off guard, Erdogan cautioned Trump against a hasty withdrawal , according to one
official. While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the
necessary forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of
northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are positioned , the official said.
The call ended with Trump repeating to Erdogan that the U.S. would pull out , but
offering no specifics on how it would be done, the officials said.
Erdogan had planned to only occupy a 10 miles deep strip along the Syrian-Turkish
border. Some 15,000 Turkish controlled 'Syrian rebels' stand ready for that. He would need
some 50-100,000 troops to occupy all of east Syria northward of the Euphrates. It would be a
hostile occupation among well armed Kurds who would oppose it and an Arab population that is
not exactly friendly towards a neo-Ottoman Turkey.
"We had decided last week to launch a military incursion... east of the Euphrates river,"
he said in a speech in Istanbul. "Our phone call with President Trump, along with contacts
between our diplomats and security officials and statements by the United States, have led
us to wait a little longer.
"We have postponed our military operation against the east of the Euphrates river until
we see on the ground the result of America's decision to withdraw from Syria."
The Turkish president said, however, that this was not an "open-ended waiting
period".
Any larger occupation of northeast Syria would create a serious mess for Turkey. Its
army can do it, but it would cost a lot of casualties and financial resources. Turkey will
hold local government election in March and Erdogan does not want any negative headlines. He
will invade, but only if Syria and Russia fail to get the Kurds under control.
Unfortunately the leaders of the anarcho-marxist PKK/YPK in Syria have still not learned
their lesson. They make the same demands to Damascus that were already rejected when similar
demands were made for Afrin canton before Turkey invaded and destroyed it.
YPG delegation was flown in to Mezzeh yday. Negos were inconclusive because they just
repeated their usual line of "SAA protects the border, we control the rest." No army allows
someone else allied with an enemy to control its rear and its supply lines. +
+ The YPG leadership is still stuck in its pro-Western rut. It needs to be purged before
any deal can be made with Damascus. Their present track will just lead to another Afrin,
then another, then another. Thousands of brave YPG/YPJ fighters will have died for nothing.
#Breakingnews: Private sources : President Bashar al Assad has rejected the Kurdish
proposal while Turkey is gathering forces (Euphrates Shield et al) to attack the Kurdish
controlled area north of #Syria. #Russia seems holding back president Erdogan for a while.
A lot of pressure
It is not (only) Russia that is holding Erdogan back. As seen above he has serious
concerns about such an operation. Moreover, he does not have enough troops yet and the U.S.
troops have not yet changed their pattern. As of today they still patrolled on the Turkish
border and yesterday new U.S. war material was
still coming in from Iraq. Erdogan does not dare to attack U.S. troops.
He will most likely want to avoid any additional military involvement in Syria. If
Damascus and Moscow can get the PKK under control, Ankara will be satisfied.
Besides the presence of 4,000 to 5,000 U.S. troops and contractors in northeast Syria
there also a contingent of 1,100 French troops and an unknown number of British forces.
France for now says
it wants to stay to finish the fight against the Islamic State enclave along the
Euphrates.
But France does not have the capability to sustain those forces without U.S. support.
Syria and Russia could ask Macron to put them under their command to finish the fight against
ISIS, but it is doubtful that President Macron would agree to that. It is more likely that he
will agree to a handover of their position to Russian, Syrian or even Iraqi or Iranian
forces. Those forces can then finish the fight.
Posted by b on December 21, 2018 at 01:09 PM |
Permalink
Comments
next page " Some of the conclusions toward the end of this article don't entirely
make sense to me. Trump is withdrawing 2000-4000 US troops. Why does it follow that their
absence would create a space requiring 50000 Turkish troops to fill? I don't see how
occupation of the entire eastern would be under consideration at all.
As far as IS is concerned, their defeat will be "enduring" when their sponsors stop paying
them, first of all.
Mattis comes across to me as a psycho case of a suppressed faggot who has spent his life
trying to disprove and conceal the blatantly obvious. There we go...fairly succinct analysis.
More importantly, Mattis, known to some by the nickname of "Mad Dog," has shown a callous
disregard for human life, particularly civilians, as evidenced by his behavior leading
marines in Iraq, comments he made about enjoying fighting in Afghanistan because "it's fun
to shoot some people. You know, it's a hell of a hoot," and myriad other problems.
...
While reporting from inside Fallujah during that siege, I personally witnessed women,
children, elderly people and ambulances being targeted by US snipers under Mattis' command.
Needless to say, all of these are war crimes.
For at least two decades, the Department of Defense has explicitly defined its mission on
its website as providing "the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security
of our country." But earlier this year, it quietly changed that statement, perhaps suggesting
a more ominous approach to national security.
...
The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the
Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our
country and sustain American influence abroad."
At least Mattis is more honest than most of his fellow psychopath war criminals.
If the AP account is factually accurate (i.e. leaving aside the tendentious pro-imperial,
pro-war editorializing), then it's funny how fast Erdogan goes from "What are you doing here?
Why don't you leave?" to "I didn't mean now!" He was probably angling for something else and
didn't really want US withdrawal.
As for the French, what a contemptible squeak from a government on the ropes trying to
look tough.
Never Mind the Bollocks , Dec 21, 2018 1:48:37 PM |
link
'The Pentagon's official website now defines its mission this way: "The mission of the
Department of Defense is to provide a lethal Joint Force to defend the security of our
country and sustain American influence abroad."'
I wonder whether, perchance, the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief should have been
consulted about that. Traditionally, US Presidents have had some considerable say in defining
the country's foreign policy.
Although one could interpret the change as being wholly in tune with Mr Trump's overriding
policy of transparent honesty. After all, as long ago as 1900 - on the evidence of Marin
Major-General Smedley Butler - we know that the US armed forces were used almost exclusively
to promote American interests abroad. Maybe it's just refreshingly open to admit it at
last.
"Trump stunned his Cabinet, lawmakers and much of the world with the move by rejecting the
advice of his top aides..."
Please remind me: who was elected in 2016 - Mr Trump, or "his top aides"?
When David Ignatius reported that Mattis's bedtime reading was Marcus Aurelius in the
original Latin, who was responsible for the mistake? (Marcus Aurelius wrote in Greek.)
Ignatius, an aide of Mattis's, or Mattis himself?
"While Turkey has made incursions into Syria in the past, it does not have the necessary
forces mobilized on the border to move in and hold the large swaths of northeastern Syria
where U.S. troops are positioned, the official said".
Splendid! Let them hand it back to the lawfully elected democratic government of Syria,
then.
'"We had decided last week to launch a military incursion... east of the Euphrates river," he
said in a speech in Istanbul'.
So much for the UN Charter, then. Anyone who wants to can invade any other country and
take over as much of its territory as he wants to - as long as Washington agrees. But, as Saddam Hussein could testify if he were still alive, it would be sensible to get
such consent in writing.
thanks b... who replaces the war criminal mattis? and when does any american get charged in
the hague for the countless wars they start? how long do we have to wait for this to happen?
the fact he changed the wording is at least more honest, so i give him credit for that... he
could have said 'we are the worlds policeman, and we will continue to be the worlds policeman
too' which would have been equally appropriate...
one thing i do like about trump is his ability to surprise... he could have done this
earlier in his term - pull out of syria - but i guess he was waiting to see how things
went... as it stands i think the knifes are out for trump big time now, and i suspect he is
not going to last as president.. someone else mentioned this on the previous thread, and i
agree with that assessment..
at some point in the next month, it is going to look different if USA follows thru with
the commanders new position... meanwhile Russia has to continue to keep turkey on a leash and
Syria, Russia and Iran have to continue to work at regaining the area east of the Euphrates
as this unfolds... the leadership in France at this point are loony... the smart thing for
them would be to leave or hand it over to syria/ russia...
Macron's forces are illegally present too. Assad would have to request their presence, but I
really doubt he will given the harm France has done to Syria over the past 7 years. Word is
SAA's Tiger Forces will get sent East of Euphrates; when is now the question.
Rolling-back the Outlaw US Empire's overseas troop deployments and shuttering their bases
is something I've argued for since I was honorably discharged in 1985, with the monies turned
to desperate domestic needs -- the financial statement may declare the USA the world's richest
nation, but reality tells a very different story. That reality got Trump elected. The
haphazard, laissez-faire, unplanned structural nature of the USA's economy is in no way
prepared for the rising technological revolution, which is in stark contrast to China and
Russia's plans. The most important message Putin delivered in his annual meeting yesterday
was about the whys and hows of changing the structure of Russia's economy:
"I have said it on numerous occasions, and I will repeat it today. We need a breakthrough.
We need to transition to a new technological paradigm. Without it, the country has no
future . This is a matter of principle, and we have to be clear on this....
" Healthcare, education, research and human capital come first, since without them
there is no way a breakthrough can be achieved . The second vector deals with
manufacturing and the economy. Of course, everything is related to the economy, including the
first part. But the second part is directly linked to the economy, since it deals with the
digital economy, robotics, etc. I have already mentioned infrastructure....
"But we will not be able to achieve the GDP growth rates necessary for this breakthrough
unless the structure of the economy is changed. This is what the national projects are aimed
at, and why such enormous funds will be invested, which I have already said – to
change the structure and build an innovation-based economy . The Government is counting
on this, because if this happens, and we should all work towards this, then the growth rates
will increase and there will be other opportunities for development." [My Emphasis]
200 million residents of the USA--2/3s of the populous--also need a breakthrough, which is
why the Green New Deal has such
widespread support : "The survey results show overwhelming support for the Green New
Deal, with 81% of registered voters saying they either 'strongly support' (40%) or 'somewhat
support' (41%) this plan." IMO, domestic political pressure generally supports Trump's MAGA,
but the monies need to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is from the Outlaw US Empire
part of the USA.
One's got to worry about who will replace Mad Dog Mattis after February 28 next year. It
would seem that whoever succeeds Mattis will be another former general, likely to share his
views on maintaining and increasing US forces in Syria, Iraq and other parts of western Asia
where they're despised by the local people, and perhaps not averse to sounding out good ol'
Erik Prince to fill the vacancies left when US troops start leaving.
Tom Welsh. It's my understanding that the Constitution states that foreign policy IS the job
of the President. This Congress doesn't seem to have gotten the memo and though strictly a
legislative body, have engaged in some pretty spectacular over reach.
The Constitution also puts an elected civilian (the President) in charge of the armed forces
but put the power to declare war firmly in the hands of Congress.
The 1973 War Powers act has obscured this division of power. The President can order troops
anywhere for a short time but must get an Authorization for Military Force from Congress.
However, this is supposed to only in the case of attack or imminent danger, hardly the case
in the ME.
Time limits on AFMF are often ignored and Congressional! purse strings almost never limit
(exception: at the end of Viet Nam Congress was about to cut funding) any and all military
adventurism.
@ karlof1 14 Healthcare, education, research and human capital come first, since without them there is
no way a breakthrough can be achieved.
It would seem to me that if US politicians really cared about their job performance they
would be working more on your "human capital" and less on warfare and Russian collusion. But
there's no money in that, so they don't. So much for "democracy." Here's a recent article on
a US achieved "breakthrough," in a negative sense that is.
WaPo, Nov 29
Life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2017, the government said Thursday
in a bleak series of reports that showed a nation still in the grip of escalating drug and
suicide crises.
The data continued the longest sustained decline in expected life span at birth in a
century, an appalling performance not seen in the United States since 1915 through 1918.
That four-year period included World War I and a flu pandemic that killed 675,000 people in
the United States and perhaps 50 million worldwide.
Public health and demographic experts reacted with alarm to the release of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention's annual statistics, which are considered a reliable
barometer of a society's health. In most developed nations, life expectancy has marched
steadily upward for decades. . .
here
Mattis could not, would not accept responsibility for the misappropriated 21 trillion dollars
at HIS defence department. Kick him out. He was always a moron and demonstrated his arrogant
dismissal of the elected president almost every day. $21 trillion buys a lot of MAGA.
Kurdish population in Syria is only 5% whereas the land they now control is 30% of the
country thanks to the democratic EUSA nations?
They can no longer feed the ISIS inmates (they'll end up in France or Germany or elsewhere
undertaking new projects?) since Khashoggi case (or Mr. Erdogan who caught the Saudis by
their balls) made Saudis quit financing the YPG. Almost all ISIS inmates left in Syria are
from abroad (they had been released from Libyan, Afghan, Iraqi prisons en mass at the
beginning of the war and are ready for relocation?
Will the globalists controlled China arrive to rebuild what the US demolitionmen destroyed
in Syria?
Who founded (USrael?) ISIS and made them lose water and oil rich territories in Syria to
the PKK/YPG/SDF and what are they planning to do now?
It'd be funny if Trump appointed Tulsi Gabbard to the post of DefSec.
I don't know much about her except that she's definitely very cute and probably isn't a
pushover. If the glowing praise of her MoA fans is any guide then she'd do a better job than
any recent appointment to the role and would then become a shoe-in for POTUS. If that came to
pass then 'Hillary Who?' would become part of America's Permanent Lexicon.
Thanks for your reply! Yes, the financialization and industrial hollowing-out of the USA's
economy renders following the path being broken by Russia/China very difficult, but the
projected outcome will be dire if the economy isn't radically restructured and the fake
economists and their financial predators aren't driven from the Temple by modern
Tribunes.
Meanwhile, shrouded by the Trump/Mattis circus,
Turkey & Iran held an "historic summit" that likely had an impact on Trump's decision
as everywhere he looks his previous foreign policy choices driven by his neocon advisors are
mostly backfiring.
The language of the US Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties and
choose Ambassadors, in consultation with and with the consent (2/3 majority) of the Senate.
Also, President is Commander-in-Chief of the military. This includes state militias if
formed. He also receives political figures from abroad.
Like so much else in the US Constitution, there has been creepy or 'necessary' or when
it's handy mission creep in regard to these delineated functions.
But more to the point, the US is and has long been a serial de facto repudiator of the US
Constitution and of International law. 'Let us discuss the fine points of law pertaining to
the repeated launching of wars of aggression on the basis of lies.'
Forgive the levity but here's Hillary's theme song.
Oh yes I'm the great pretender (ooh ooh)
Pretending that I'm doing well (ooh ooh)
My need is such I pretend too much
I'm lonely but no one can tell.
Oh yes I'm the great pretender (ooh ooh)
Adrift in a world of my own (ooh ooh)
I play the game but to my real shame
You've left me to dream all alone.
Too real is this feeling of make believe
Too real when I feel what my heart can't conceal
Ooh ooh yes I'm the great pretender (ooh ooh)
Just laughing and gay like a clown (ooh ooh)
I seem to be what I'm not (you see)
I'm wearing my heart like a crown
Pretending that I'm still around.
(stiill a rounnd)
If the U.S. withdraws its forces from NE Syria who will control the air space. That will
likely determine who controls the territory in the future. I don't think the Kurds have an
airforce.
mls
financial matters , Dec 21, 2018 4:13:46 PM |
link
karlof1 @ 14
"""But we will not be able to achieve the GDP growth rates necessary for this breakthrough
unless the structure of the economy is changed. This is what the national projects are aimed
at, and why such enormous funds will be invested, which I have already said – to change
the structure and build an innovation-based economy. The Government is counting on this,
because if this happens, and we should all work towards this, then the growth rates will
increase and there will be other opportunities for development."""
Similar sentiments are expressed by Rhiana Gunn-Wright.
After Sanders lost the Democratic primary in 2016 a group called 'Brand New Congress'
formed to carry on his ideas. This morphed into 'Justice Democrats' which helped
Ocasio-Cortez get elected. She is serving as a lightning rod giving the Green New Deal
popularity.
Rhiana Gunn-Wright is a young energetic and talented policy wonk working for 'New
Consensus' which is a spin off of the 'Justice Democrats'.
She is being tasked with forming policy for the Green New Deal.
'Again, the GND is not just climate policy. It's about transforming the economy, lifting
up the poor and middle class, and creating a more muscular, active public sector.
The GND "opens an opportunity to renegotiate power relationships between the public
sector, the private sector, and the people," says Gunn-Wright. "We are interested in
solutions that create more democratic structures in our economy.'
$21 Trillion + "interests abroad" DoD mission creep
>>
Silicon Valley hot air equity ($150,000 starting salaries for fresh graduates) on cash flow
only digital assetts
+ offshore oligarch accounts (kkr et al)
I found it helpful to take stock of reported conditions surrounding the troops out
move:
* ksa reportedly going bankrupt
* ksa reneges on golden glow globe sword dance MIC mou-s
* failed israeli missile attempt to start wwiii & ensuing s300 reinforcements
* kashoggi and related muslim brotherhood entanglements
* clinton foundation in DC "hearings" censored by msm
* continued censorship of Awan bros Blackberry scandal (espionage?)
* Cricket hero Khan batting for Pakistan
* Huawei affair
* Bibi & family corruption scandal
Trump has a keen eye for ratings, and surely knows giving the deplorables (private
contractors, self employeds etc) trying to rub two pennies together gasoline under $3/gallon
in the holiday season will mean much more to the public than Cnn Russiagate drivel working
people have no time for anyway. Keeping armed forces rank and file happy and re purposing for
disaster relief would be a good move.
Karlof1 is correct to make the most of the narrative. Glad b is on it. Hope troops arent
cleared for nuclear Armeggedon!
@mls The US currently does not control Syrian airspace. The Russians do, ever since they
switched from using the existing old Syrian S200 to the current advanced model S300, after
the downing of their plane by the Israeli interference.
This was probably another factor that made operating in Syria increasingly problematic and
handicapped: options of 'punishing Assad' or bombing mobile Iranian units were limited if
they didn't want to coordinate with the Russians.
The Syrians now have to amass a large contingent to 'control' the Kurdish area; likely the
Russians will be go-between to lower Kurdish demands as well as placate the SAA and achieve
some kind of tense co-existence which can keep Turkey satisfied.
Interesting to see how Syria will handle both wanting to mop up Idlib as well as re-establish
control over the North-East and its oil wells.
I read that Trump did not inform Netanyahu of the USA's Syria 'withdrawal' until about an
hour before it was made public via tweet. Five mins! according to another article. Also, that
Trump did discuss it with B.N. several days before (Haaretz), that sounded like a smoothing
over. Another article claimed that it was Pompeo who clued in Israel a short while before. So
who knows?
Right from the first time they met, Bibi was terrified of Trump, though I could not find
one telling vid. I saw.
Feb. 15 2017.
Trump today said that he is keeping his options open about how best to reach a peaceful
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation but urged Israel to hold back on settlement
building in occupied territories.
President Trump veered from years of U.S. policy in the Middle East by backing off the
"two-state solution," as the only path to peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
One article stated that Macron and Merkel learnt of the 'withdrawal' from the media! I
have noted that Macron is always very 'late' and 'behind the times' as far as the US is
concerned, obviously the F 'info' services have no clue, or he isn't kept informed, etc.
Not that there will be consequent 'fall-out' from either, for the moment. (Israel can only
go along, and the EU has more serious stuff on its plate.)
Yes, it's dispiriting, but not surprising that the anti-war "Left" movement has almost
totally dissolved following their failure to prevent the Iraq war. As a deeply cynical person
I'm certain that Hillary and the Clintonites worked behind the scenes in the DNC to undermine
the Anti-war movement in expectation of her eventual 2008 & 2016 runs, since she and Bill
supported the Iraq war and were no shrinking violets when it came to the use of military
force in furtherance of their foreign policy goals. The consequence of destroying the
Anti-war movement with the Democratic Party is that they have become a defacto Pro-war party
even in situations where the use of the military is blatantly illegal, futile and against the
National interest (since there is no organized Anti-war movement articulating why they should
not go to war/use military force to stand against the Military Industrial Complex that is
constantly advocating for more war). Hilariously, by becoming a Pro-war Party when the
American people are increasingly tired of constant warfare the Democratic Party lost the 2016
election to a mildly anti-war Trump, who will most likely be re-elected (unless he is
impeached or assassinated). In the long-term, unless the DNC faces up to the 30 years of
disastrous Clinton mismanagement and corruption and cleans house, I could certainty see the
Democratic Party collapsing over the next 15 years just like how the Labour Party in the UK
is still struggling with the legacy of Tony Blair.
What's really galling to me though is watching all these so called "liberals" (Cher, Beth
Midler, Rachael "Mad Cow" Maddow & Mia Farrow) whine about how the US should never leave
Syria and stay there indefinitely; Are they or their children going to be fighting this war?
Who gave the US such authority take seize parts of Syria? What exactly is the benefit to the
US & her people in doing all of this? How many hundreds of thousands people (mostly
Syrians) need to die for this ill-defined goal of spiting Syria & Russia? Just like the
destruction of the Anti-war left in the Democratic Party had long term consequences, people
will remember how Hollywood liberals behaved like jabbering, ignorant, warmongering
ideologues during this period of US decline and it will cause profound damage to them and
their professed causes.
Nice thoughts, but I don't think you have the time.
"Worst December since the great depression"
Just look at the pictures (charts), and scroll down.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-21/fear-reaches-most-extreme-ever-traders-see-panic-air
....
Trump has a tactic of "giving people what they ask for" (eg Jerusalem). Just to break a
deadlock. This Syria gambit seems to be something of the same as Erdogan now gets what he has
been asking for - and finds he doesn't want it yet.
I still think that there will be a continued US presence in Syria, concentrated around the
Oil sources. The Agricultural lands further north were owned by "Arabic", Christian, Yadizi
and other various tribes and ethnies. The Kurds only made up a small portion.
One reason that Trump may have decided to throw the Kurds to the wolves, is that they were
overstretched, and not motivated enough to continue to be cannon fodder for Uncle Sam. The
SDF (Which incorporates some turncoat ISIS members, which partly explains why there has only
been slow "progress" against the last ISIS enclave in Eastern Syria, brother against
ex-brother), also contains foreign mercenaries from various sources. What they will "demand"
is open to question. The tribal forces in the SAA who are directly opposite contain members
of the Shaitah, who saw 700 of their women and children massacred by ISIS. They may want
their own land back too, as well as "payback".
The other reason for Trump to act now is that Flynn has been given three months in which
to change his guilty "plea". After which, Mueller will HAVE TO provide proof, and not just
accusations and people that have been blackmailed into "plea deals". Trump doesn't have too
much time left for subtle tweet-tweets before the Dems arrive. etc (big topic by itself)
.... By the way, OT; Butina was really "brain-washed". 67 days in solitary confinement
with all the recognised means of brainwashing used on her. Assault (including sexual) sleep
deprivation, continued stress (including randomly timed "strip searches") probably lighting
either permanently on or randomly used to destroy time awareness. There are other methods to
be included, and at a "key" break point, a "counsellor/handler will whisper sweet nothings in
hear ear to control her way of thinking ( I am NOT a specialist in Brainwashing, but the
outline of what she suffered, means that she will always repeat what she has been told to
say.) Real Brainwashing from the cold war era .
b's statement regarding Turkey: "Its army can do it, but it would cost a lot of casualties
and financial resources."
During the entire war, Turkey's army has done not so much and not so well. Manbij, Afrin,
and where else? Well before the US presence with bases, the Turks could not hold their border
region from the Kurds.
They cannot impact deep anywhere. Their AF is not even as effective as Syria's, yet it is
a much better, more advanced arm of the military. It's special forces?
They are used to doing what NATO and US troops do. They murder civilians and massacre
opposition. They did little against ISIS which was a very fierce, mobile and effective
military.
They do have logistical advantage and can move heavy weapons for a siege. But they are a
set piece land force.
The Kurds also are quite overrated.
Erdogan knows that the notion of him holding the East is a pipedream. His FSA allies are
the weakest lot in Syria.
His real fighters are those in Idlib, al Nusra and the Uyghurs.
If he intends to hold land the US has marked out in the North-east and East, he will have
to move the headchoppers.
The Russians will annihilate them if they cross the zones in Idlib.
With the US vacuum the Syrians, Hezbollah, Quds, Iranian militias and the Russians will
complete the war.
The French and Brits say they are staying. They should write their Last Will letters. They
will be shot out of the sky and incinerated on the ground. Folly.
The pullouts from Syria and Afghanistan are severe blows to NATO as hegemonic shock
troops.
This time next year we will hear and see how Russia won and NATO is gone from Eurasia.
This is also an object lesson to those nations on Russia's periphery who are flirting with
the US, EU and NATO. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan will have to recalculate.
I think we will see many more updates such as this one, showing us who's pushing back,
who's wavering, and who's simply blowing hot air. I could wish for better sources of the back
story than AP and Reuters, but we must wait for better analysis I think. I'm sure I'll see it
here first - thanks for your continued vigilance.
Meanwhile my guesses are that Trump holds the longest knife and will prevail in this
course. And that Erdogan is not faltering as the Reuters report implies, but is simply
letting players and forces adjust to the new situation. And that, regardless of the details
on the ground, the US flag has been struck in Syria, irreversibly. This is a geopolitical
milestone, and everything now changes from this.
@35 It has been my understanding that while the Russian forces have stepped up their air
defense systems the Americans still fly freely to the north-east of the Euphrates and have
not hesitated to attack SAA forces who came close to their proxies on the ground, as well as
attacking the SAA when they moved toward the U.S. base at al-Tanf. If the U.S. really does
evacuate their troops it will be interesting to see if they discontinue their air movements
over the eastern bank of the Euphrates. mls
Almost all ISIS inmates left in Syria are from abroad (they had been released from Libyan,
Afghan, Iraqi prisons en mass at the beginning of the war and are ready for relocation?
Who founded (USrael?) ISIS and made them lose water and oil rich territories in Syria to
the PKK/YPG/SDF and what are they planning to do now?
@ Kadath 39
As respects Rachel Mad Cow,MSNBC has been reading from the neo-con playbook for several years
now. Pre-Iraq War,Chris Matthews was vehemently against it, but in my limited recent
viewership they are silent on Syria in general. They did however have a one hour special by
Richard Engle which was essentially an hour of showing the carnage and saying "look what
Assad did". It was even more absurd than Fox's islamaphobic specials they ran a few times.
Truly pathetic and it feels like MSNBC is hewing to the HRC model "of no one can criticize me
fro the right on "national security".
my comment was chopped off... first time i can recall ew writing on foreign policy! at any
rate, skip the ew comment section, as the folks at ew can completely in denial about the role
the democrats have played in bringing the usa to this point in time... read @35 kadath post
for greater clarity on that...
Too many "old men who think in terms of nation states and peoples. There are no nations.
There are no peoples. There is only the Federal Reserve, the BIS, IMF, WB, WTO and an
entourage of multinational corporations all inextricably inter associated." as redux of Ned
Beatty's soliloquy from the film Network.
These pesky wars, as one front of many fronts, are getting in the way of NWO timing. The
world's major central banks are now involved in quantitative tightening and much of the
liquidity that was handed out as loans will now disappear and the debt trap will now be
sprung on many 'nation states' as it was in Greece. Turkey's major industries owe about 300
Billion. This while the Lira drops ever lower in relation to the Fed Reserve Note,
euphemistically the USD, and will be hard pressed to pay back the less abundant, higher
valued amounts at the higher interest rates of the FRN's borrowed. War, with very real
deaths, continues but on another front and Trump as the front figure is the main conductor of
this coming war.
When David Ignatius reported that Mattis's bedtime reading was Marcus Aurelius in the
original Latin, who was responsible for the mistake? (Marcus Aurelius wrote in Greek.)
Ignatius, an aide of Mattis's, or Mattis himself?
Posted by: lysias | Dec 21, 2018 1:54:56 PM | 9
Explanation from an aide of Mattis: the General purchased the volume while visiting Latin
America, so he always assumed that it is in Latin.
What theis "withdrawal" is about....To continue causing turmoil in Syria so as to impede its
rebuilt and return to peaceful normal life...This is why Israel has not said a word....
I have been away in the Scottish wilderness for a while, cut off from everything, so it with
somewhat jaded joy that I come back to stunning news from this unfailingly brilliant place to
hear the latest (US getting out of Syria, Mattis out, Macron on fire, Britain in an
existential crisis the like of which I have neither seen nor read about).
Like a schoolkid who has absented themselves I venture back into the classroom to take my
little seat, all the while carrying with me audio of howling winds and the low whistle of a
friend who came to visit, an Irish instrument that so resembles native American flutes. In
this Highland cabin I filled the stove with ash and oak and beech, listened to the haunting
sound of the low whistle and drank whisky as I watched the snow drift down.
The SDF (Which incorporates some turncoat ISIS members, which partly explains why there has
only been slow "progress" against the last ISIS enclave in Eastern Syria, brother against
ex-brother), also contains foreign mercenaries from various sources.
Josh on #35 hints at an explanation for Trumps action which is confirmed by a romanian
military expert in the article http://www.voltairenet.org/article204433.html
Assuming that analysis is correct, Trumps military associates like Mattis must have known but
was apparently more willing to risk american casualties.
So the past 2 years of bombing and support for bombing and special forces operations in
Syria, Yemen, Africa, Afghanistan and of course the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians in
Israel is blamed on Trumps aids, all of whom he hired.
Whenever something positive comes out (and Trump has said he was done in Syria before only
to be followed later by a barrage of missiles due to outrage over the poor babies killed in
the CW attack blamed on Assad) its presented as Trump heroically goes against his aids advice
and does right.
This is a common theme in MSM and almost all of the alt media now. Trumps swamp included
Bolton, Barr, Devos, Pompeo, Mnuchkin, Acosta, Haspel, Ross, Mulvaney, Kushner, Pruit,
Mattis. Blame them instead of the guy who hired them and has authority over them.
Right.
I have been away in the Scottish wilderness for a while, cut off from everything,
Posted by: Lochearn | Dec 21, 2018 6:03:22 PM | 51
I once spent a week in Glen Lyon which is not cut off from anything, there is a paved road
(one-lane for two way traffic, only in Scotland!) and Royal Mail operated, but these days
young people complain when there is no cell phone reception, there was a land line but our
niece was could not send any pics and texts to her boyfriend. Thus she very eagerly joined me
for a hike and after ascending 1000 m and getting the view of Loch Tay she immediately texted
etc. But something is brewing outside quiet glens: [video of parliamentary session] The
defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, says the UK will have 3,500 service personnel on standby
'to support any government department on any contingencies they may need'
Watch the situation, Lochearn, and if needed, run back to the hills.
Thanks for your reply with its post-2016 info! I returned to following domestic happenings
a few months prior to the 2018 election and was surprised by the gumption of the new Freshman
class. There was lots of negative speculation about how AOC would become a sellout, but I'm
impressed and added her twitter to my ever lengthening list. The first 2020 polls have
appeared with the narrative being Biden over washed up Sanders, but the reality is the
opposite. Wife and I had a dinner table discussion about that and related matters last night
from the frame of Media Truth from Putin's meeting I posted. There's an ideological divide
within the USA; but as AOC notes in this very informative* twitter
thread :
"People are starting to realize our issues aren't left and right, but top and bottom.
"And the just solutions will come from the bottom-up."
*--Informative due to the immoral hatred revealed, which unfortunately validates my
references to Monopoly philosophy and Zerosumism. Scrooge was tame in comparison.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 21, 2018 5:51:32 PM | 49
Explanation from an aide of Mattis: the General purchased the volume while visiting
Latin America, so he always assumed that it is in Latin.
Or in Latin American...
And it wasn't bedtime reading but bathroom reading.
Fortunately, the stock markets are not the economy. Trump campaigned on MAGA; the Green
New Deal makes MAGA possible and as the polling I linked to shows is popular across political
lines--the people know something must be done. Currently, it's the D Party Old Guard standing
in the way doing R Party work. When it comes to the traditional definitions of national
security and national interest, Trump was correct to say MAGA is a matter of national
security. Too many Trillions have already been wasted, and we within the USA cannot afford
any more of those mistakes from the past as the margin for success gets thinner daily. When I
compare the directions of China, Russia and USA, the former two are rising by attaining their
planned national goals, while the USA drops downward thanks to directionless policy
that only supports the greed of the greedy. I know its much better for an individual to be a
poor worker in China than a poor worker in the state of Georgia and too many other
places--very few opportunities and almost no social support very similar to the Great
Depression; but nowadays, you can't even hop a freight to go somewhere else as was possible
in the '30s.
Apparently, Mattis bought the book for the illustrations.
Latin America speaks Spanish and Portuguese not Latin American, which is not a
language.
Plus, there are secondary languages of indigenous people, and tertiary languages like German
and Italian, Japanese and Chinese as well as English.
From the "story" about Mattis, I think it is laughable. He pretended his whole life to be
a Patton.
Read their career stories and it is a joke that Mattis had four-stars, as did Patton.
"UK government refuses to release the documents on its 'counter-disinformation' programme
linked to the Integrity Initiative. Because (don't laugh now), it could 'undermine the
programme's effectiveness'."
Where is the evidence of widespread support for a green new deal as pushed by a couple of
people here. A poll of 966 people sorted by whether or not they are voters does not mean
there is widespread support. As in most polls claiming whatever we do not know the questions
that were asked or how they were framed. Thus they could have said "would you be for a new
green deal if it energized the economy bringing riches to all and extremely cheap rates on
power would you be for it." Until we know the full extent of this poll it's a nothing burger
pushing an agenda.
@ financial matters # 33 with the link to the Green New Deal....thanks
The problem with the GND is that it does not seem to address the underlying fact that
private finance makes all investment decisions. If they evolve to understand that, they can
do all they want if it is within the public government plans for investment.
If the government controlled finance instead of the private folk I would expect there to
be public input to/(control over) investment decisions.....just like the GND folks are
pushing for but in a more comprehensive context and manner.
The only reading generals do is Macchhiavelli, Von Clausewitz and Superman
O yeah -- and the bible, these days.
Posted by: bjd | Dec 21, 2018 7:42:17 PM | 60
A general slurps macchiato while reading The Prince of Niccolò
Machiavelli.
In the history of my country there is a nice episode when one of the main generals was
rousing the units before the critical battle that actually went well "In loco, spes in
virtute, salus in victoria" - Here, the (only) hope (lies) in bravery, salvation in victory,
which quotes Ceasar's De Bello Gallico. . Sadly, while the battle was brilliant, the
war was not. Nevertheless, I would recommend Ceasar.
Ceasar was victorious, so he should be balanced with History of the Peloponnesian
War of Thucidites. A terrible was in which one side lost terribly, while the other
succumbed to hubris, imposed painful domination on all and sundry to be irreversibly defeated
one generation after. Woe to the defeated, but the victors should be careful too.
The story of "Woe to the defeated", Vae victis , is interested too. Romans were
treated mercilessly by victorious (unmitigated?) Gauls, but then see De Bello Gallico
above.
Five unforgettable quotes by the killer, James Mattis (He will be missed?):
>1. 'It's quite fun to shoot them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot
some people.'
>2. 'There are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.'
>3. 'I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in
my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all.'
>4. 'Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.'
>5. 'There are some people who think you have to hate them in order to shoot them. I
don't think you do.'. . .
here
I am sure getting tired of entering my personal info each time I post a comment because the
remember doesn't work...
@ karlof1 with
"
"UK government refuses to release the documents on its 'counter-disinformation' programme
linked to the Integrity Initiative. Because (don't laugh now), it could 'undermine the
programme's effectiveness'."
"
They are lying through there teeth. The real problem for them is that some could end up in
jail, and rightfully so. We can only hope that they take the City of London down with
them.
What is their long term plan for containing the IntegrityNOTInitiative scandal? The house
of cards seems to be falling and now is when we hope that the losers love their children
enough to not takes us to extinction with their pride.
It appears more people are aware of such a threat as
this article notes . Pelosi's unfortunately a whore of the sort needing pasteurization,
along with Feinstein.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 21, 2018 9:04:06 PM | 66 Five unforgettable quotes by the killer, James Mattis ...
Yep, the influence of Marcus Aurelius is all over him. Through and through.
True philosopher general indeed.
The problem with the GND being discussed here is in the Green. Any New Deal that starts with
a false premise and bad science is a bad idea IMO.
That said, a New Deal that incorporates Ellen Browns and Edison/Fords ideas on public
financing I am all for. Goals should be universal health care, guaranteed income and housing,
vast infrastructure projects and alternative energy development. The latter two should be
green in the sense of nonpolluting (Co2 is not a pollutant). Jobs are fine but with
automation, AI, and robotics lets face it, a world where most people dont work except as a
hobby or to live better than others is coming, as my old science teacher predicted with envy
over 50 years ago. The neomalthusians and transhumanists have other ideas.
I would also devote massive resources for researching the safety of GMO , vaccines and
medicines as well as upgrading climate monitoring and climate research since climate does
change and we have so little understanding of it. Climate measurements are indadequate
(number of weather stations in US have dropped by a factor of 3 since climate became a thing
and quality is a key concern. This research needs to be free of influence from parties having
an agenda (political and financial). Good luck with that.
Mattis is a coward, he knows the American efforts in Syria has failed, and will go nowhere.
So for him this was a great excuse and a good uportunity to resign and not share the blame
for failure of his past advise and insistence to continue a lost effort. Now all the blames
for loosing in Syria will go to Trump. The blame game has already started coming out of MSM
and the DC swamp (you read sewer).
@ pft will the great follow on the the GND proposal
I want to add a data point to the universal health care initiative.
Because we are a society wedded to the profit motive we put it between the client and the
health care provider and worse only promote "therapies" that make a profit. Let me provide my
personal proof of that statement.
This week, after a 12 year journey, I can state that I have healed myself (with help) from
a traumatic brain injury using neurofeedback. Neurofeedback in a non-drug, non-invasive EEG
based therapy based on the mental health brain paradigm of dis-regulated neural networks. The
world of Big Pharma does not want to see neurofeedback advance because it will eliminate most
of them.
Some on MoA have read me writing about this before and I will do so more in some future
Open Thread.....when the dust settles a bit.
@1 Isn't it obvious? US forces are there to support the Kurdish forces. Training, supplying,
and a little moral "stiffening".
But Turkisk forces would go in with the aim of defeating those Kurds, and then suppressing
the local pop in. That requires an order of magnitude more troops.
One think-tanker expects problems with troop morale, which by the way was the killer that
ended the stupid Vietnam War.
Trump's sudden decisions to drawdown troops in Syria and Afghanistan that sparked Mattis'
resignation marked for perhaps the first time in American history the departure of a
defense secretary in protest and adds to the overall unease that remains, experts said.
"I think it adds to a feeling that in some sense the wheels are beginning to come off of
American foreign policy and national security policy," said John Hannah, a senior counselor
at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute
on foreign policy and national security in Washington.
Hannah said he thinks the Mattis resignation will inevitably affect troop morale . . . .
here
Tom Cotton is a rabid hawk especially on Iran. If Trump choses him then this will signal
what Trump meant by the next phase of the campaign after he announced a withdrawal
from Syria.
I read General Jack Keane was in the running but he doesn't want the job.
That leaves Lindsey Graham and David Petraeus. Both of these might be willing to take the
job, but I see Trump picking Petraeus over Graham, although Graham just visited the troops in
Afghanistan; maybe he's sending a subtle hint to Trump.
If it's Cotton, we should brace ourselves for escalation with Iran.
Well there are 50K Al Nusra fighters in Idlib that Russia and Syria want out of there and
Turkey is protecting. Maybe they will be on the move soon to deal with the Kurds in the NE
once the US pulls out. US can pretend ignorance and then step back in again under the cover
of stabilizing the region with replacement for the kurds to use against Assad and protect
assets in the NE. Everyone except the Kurds is happy, almost.
Further to your point about MSNBC, I just watched Michael Moore on MSNBC being interviewed
by Ali Velshi and Moore was actually advocating that the troops stay in Syria and blamed
Putin for ordering Trump to do this ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0SP7puk8f8)
- words fail..... Michael Moore, the Anti-Iraq war activist, the Occupy Wall Street advocate,
the Anti-Imperialist, has reached the terminal phase of his Trump Derangement Syndrome. His
irrational hatred of Trump has just driven him to torch all of his prior Anti-War work; to
betray every speech, every millimeter of film he's ever made all because he hates Trump that
much and everything he has previously done can be jettisoned if it furthers this new
goal.
Ugh... Is he doing this all for the money he can glean from the mainstream Media by being
even more extreme than them, was he always this shallow and empty? This is what I just cant
get over, do these jackanapes not understand that their words and behaviours are being
recorded and people will remember it, it will haunt their futures and taint their legacies.
Hating Trump is one thing (there is certainly no shortage of reasons to hate him), but I'm
rethinking my entire interpretation of Moore and his career because of these constant,
irrationally hateful and extreme statements. Michael Moore, Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon,
Rachal Maddow and Stephen Colbert can play to the crowd for now, but once Trump's term ends
people will never be able to take them seriously as public figures again because of all of
their delusional tirades while Trump was in office.
Troop moral today is far different than Vietnam. Reason in no order of importance
1. Well paid volunteer army, well trained with skills transferrable to private sector
2. Limited tour length, long paid breaks between tours
3. Skype/internet access on tours to stay in touch with family firiends
4. Contractors to do much of the dirty work
5. Military glorification at home treats them as heros and plenty of discounts
6. Far fewer casualties
7. Great benefits once the leave miliitary (loans, paid university transferrable)
8. Tax benfits for companies hiring vets helps them in job market
The main negative with fewer troops in Syria or Afghanistan means there are fewer tours
which means less money.
I expect they will be deployed elsewhere. Where is the big question. Like you say, moral
not an issue
Kadath 80 "do these jackanapes not understand that their words and behaviours are being
recorded and people will remember it"
The average person that watches MSM have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to politics.
"His irrational hatred of Trump has just driven him to torch all of his prior Anti-War
work"
Most that make it in politics or entertainment go with the flow - whatever will further their
career. Empty people. I don't know this Michael Moor, but sounds lie he is one of this
type.
People like Lindsey Graham simply cannot comprehend that USA is in fact a demolished country,
with its last leg - the stock market - getting cut off in real time, as we speak. The
implications of American equity markets collapse are momentous. The relentless year-end
selling means that government revenues will be drastically reduced, by at least couple
hundred billion dollars, driving US budget deficit to well in excess of $1.2T in current
fiscal year. And that's in a benign case. If America slips in a recession, and has to resort
to fiscal stimulus, we are talking about $1.5-2T budget shortfall. Add quickly deteriorating
demographics, and "japanisation" of the USA is all but inevitable (and yes, US financial
system is a dead man walking)
Trump, although not the brightest bulb, is infinitely smarter than Grahams, Rubios and
Cottons of the world. He knows that it's much better to withdraw on what looks like own
accord now, than being kicked out in the most disgraceful fashion upon the passage of time.
Or even worse, having your troops marooned in the troubled region without any prospect of
being extricated, unless on the most humiliating terms.
Whether Trump succeeds or fails in returning the troops home is irrelevant at this point.
They are coming home anyway. The only question remaining is not if but when, and how.
Maybe Trump is diversyfing, scaling down in the The Middle East (a lots been accomplished
already) and ramp up efforts in Africa and Latin America to counter BRICS
@87 once and future... first off i want to thank stonebird for there comments on this topic..
solitary confinement is inhumane.. that the usa is keen to use it in all sorts of
circumstances, is a reflection of their abu ghraib, guantanemo mentality... solitary
confinement is more of the same.. in a civilized world it would never be allowed to be
done... but this is more exceptional nation stuff from the exceptional nation and what the
world has come to expect from a country that preaches one thing while practicing something
completely different..
80 kadath... michael moore has really fallen... i was unaware of this and am not tapped
into the usa msm to be able to follow.. in fact, it is so depressing i have no interest in
following much of anything coming out of the usa at this point...
@78 circe.. another name mentioned was this tulsi gabbard from hawaii.. i doubt it very
much... the usa continues to fly way off the rails...
Michael Moore destroyed his credibility when he failed to denounce Obama for not jailing
the Banksters and it's been downhill from there as it's been with so many of his ilk. Another
case of money ruining youthful idealism. Caitlin's on a roll and deserves a much larger audience. The propagandizers have deluded
themselves via their own machinations and are now going mad.
"there also a contingent of 1,100 French troops"... You can hear me laughing after reading this. The French empire was over a long long time ago and they still think that Syria is their
colony. France has been sending French Jihadists for regime change in Syria since 2011 and their
mission has failed since Russia intervened in 2015. France cannot even send troops to Mali - destabilized by Jihadists created by France in
Libya to topple Kadhafi, without the help of the US!!! France is a de-facto vassal state of the US since they decided to joined the NATO central
command under Sarkozy who was bribed by the zionist neocons.
...
US can pretend ignorance and then step back in again under the cover of stabilizing the
region with replacement for the kurds to use against Assad and protect assets in the NE.
Everyone except the Kurds is happy, almost.
Posted by: Pft | Dec 21, 2018 11:19:21 PM | 79
I think you're right. And I hope so, too...
The Yanks should be counting their blessings. I thought it was extraordinarily generous of
Putin to agree with Donald that "the US beat ISIS in Syria" considering how
half-assed/limp-wristed their anti-ISIS actions were in comparison with Russia's 100+ sorties
per day 24/7 for many months.
Imo, if the Yanks dream up another excuse to go back into Syria, Putin will caution against
it and then make sure that none of them get out alive.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 22, 2018 2:07:30 AM |
link
I personally distinguish between Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria and his move to
withdraw partially from Afghanistan. The latter is a step towards ending a brutal, illegal
NATO occupation war of over 17 years. The former is also illegal but the Syrian Kurds (left
wing and largely communist) are likely to be supplanted as counters to "Iran" by fascists
Turkey and Israel (this has been confirmed in reports), so we're moving from tactical NATO
proxies to actual NATO governments seizing Syrian land.
All of that being said, both are policy decisions that should be able to be debated
freely. I can totally see why many on the anti-imperialist left welcome the decision to
withdraw from Syria, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to them. It the US and international
media response has been horrific.
The New York Times and Guardian are basically now neconservative papers indistinguishable from the Wall Steet Journal and Daily Telegraph. Not
a word of dissent is even remotely allowed or involved. The Blob has totally taken over the
entirety of the liberal global establishment which sees Trump's move as "treasonous." Not
looking forward to 2020 when Democrats will run on identical foreign policy platforms to Mitt
Romney.
Not sure if you watched when Michael Moore received the Oscar for Farenheit 9/11. Let's
remember he was addressing the top elite Liberal crowd and got booed. What is it they say
about prophets in their own land? Oh yeah, Jesus said: A prophet is without honor in his
own country.
I actually have some sympathy for Michael Moore. Aside from being a major critic of the
Bush Administration, Michael Moore was also very critical of Obama, and Hillary and was
lambasted by liberal centrists and neolibs. He was considered part of the radical left and
despite the success of his documentaries, he continued to be marginalized and never received
the respect he deserved. In 2015, Moore was supporting Bernie Sanders, but when Bernie was
railroaded, Moore who couldn't see himself voting for a Republican ever, especially a
depraved billionaire whom he rightly viewed as Chaos personified felt that Hillary was the
lesser evil, and from there found the respect that had been denied to him by his own side and
especially after he predicted Hillary was about to lose despite the polls and Michigan,
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would deny her the Presidency. From the day his prediction
materialized Democrats were in awe of his perception. Since then he exchanged integrity for
their respect. The Michael Moore of 2003 would never criticize military de-escalation.
However, Moore recently released a new documentary Farenheit 11/9 wherein apparently he's
critical of Democrats whom he blames for the rise of Trump.
So don't be too hard on Moore who was an outcast in liberal country for too long. Once
you've earned the respect of your own and the mainstream it's not so easy to speak your truth
anymore. Thanks to Trump and the Dems, Moore has been temporarily altered. But you're right,
he'll look back with regret on this Syria opinion.
I can't stand Trump either, but I agree that getting out of Syria and de-escalating is a
good thing...IF in fact that's what he's really up to.
The national security adviser expanded U.S. goals in Syria to challenge Iran. But Trump
wasn't on board, senior officials say, and Turkey took an opportunity to push the U.S.
out.
...
Most that make it in politics or entertainment go with the flow - whatever will further their
career. Empty people. I don't know this Michael Moor, but sounds lie he is one of this
type.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Dec 21, 2018 11:48:20 PM | 83
Michael Moore has produced some brilliant anti-establishment docos focusing on gun-control
(Bowling for Columbine), the US healthcare rort, the sub-prime scam, and the absence of
socio-economic well-being in AmeriKKKa (Where To Invade Next?).
I'm hoping that Kadath @ #80 is kidding, but he's right about Moore being rabidly anti-Trump
from the get-go.
Geo-political chess. Russia, Turkey, Iran have called check and Trump is moving his pieces
accordingly. I think he will pull the US out of Syria. Seems he is not as blinded by his
hatred of Iran as his appointees.
So, does this mean that Bolton should or will resign?
I thought the update of the linked article with the statement about the Kurds from the
White House official was interesting: ""They've done the majority of the fighting against
ISIS in Syria," one U.S. official said. "How do you treat a partner like this?""
ISIS is as authentic and real as The White Helmets. There are mercenaries trained, paid
and moved around by foreign intelligence, but there is no independent entity with a cyber
division between the deserts of syria and iraq.
A US military aircraft took control of 13 drones over Syria in January and tried to redirect them in an attack on a Russian airbase,
a senior Russian official has claimed. Russia's military managed to thwart the attempt.
The US military helped coordinate an attempted drone attack on Russia's Hemeimeem base in Syria, Russian deputy defense minister
Alexander Fomin claimed at a summit in Beijing on Thursday. The alleged attack took place in January 2018.
Fomin's statement marks the first time Russia has directly accused the US of targeting Russian forces.
The Russian official said that a coordinated group of 13 drones was directed toward the base while a US Poseidon-8, a high-tech
reconnaissance plane, was cruising over the Mediterranean. Once the drones "reached our barrier of radio-electronic interference,"
they were switched to manual navigation, according to Fomin.
"This manual control is not conducted by just some villager, but by a normal, modernized Poseidon-8," Fomin added. "It took on
manual control."
Fomin did not say who had launched the drones before the the US plane took over their direction. 'This needs to stop'
Russian forces managed to shoot down seven of the drones and then hack and take control of the remaining six, landing them safely.
"And this needs to stop -- in order to avoid high-tech weapons falling into terrorists' hands and having well-equipped terrorists,
it is necessary to stop strengthening them," Fomin told delegates at China's Xiangshan security forum.
The three-day summit in Beijing is organized by the Chinese defense ministry, with delegates expected from 79 countries.
Moscow has repeatedly accused the US of supplying and arming jihadist groups fighting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
Islamist rebels often use drones to target Russian forces in Syria. Russia's defense ministry has claimed that rebel drones appear
to be basic, but are equipped with modern navigation and ordinance delivery systems. This suggests that "a country possessing the
technology to produce such systems supplied them to international terrorist groups," the ministry said, according to remarks cited
by Russia's RIA Novosti agency.
Syria has been engulfed in a devastating civil war since 2011 after Syrian President Bashar Assad lost control over large parts
of the country to multiple revolutionary groups. The conflict has since drawn in foreign powers and brought misery and death to Syrians.
Syria's army, officially known as the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), is loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and is fighting to
restore the president's rule over the entire country. The SAA has been fighting alongside a number of pro-Assad militias such as
the National Defense Force and has cooperated with military advisors from Russia and Iran, which back Assad.
Turkey, which is also part of the US-led coalition against IS, has actively supported rebels opposed to Assad. It has a tense
relationship with its American allies over US cooperation with Kurdish fighters, who Ankara says are linked to the Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK) fighting in Turkey. The Turkish military has intervened alongside rebels in northern Aleppo, Afrin and Idlib province.
The Kremlin has proven to be a powerful friend to Assad. Russian air power and ground troops officially joined the fight in September
2015 after years of supplying the Syrian army. Moscow has come under fire from the international community for the high number of
civilian casualties during its airstrikes. However, Russia's intervention turned the tide in war in favor of Assad.
A US-led coalition of more than 50 countries, including Germany, began targeting IS and other terrorist targets with airstrikes
in late 2014. The anti-IS coalition has dealt major setbacks to the militant group. The US has more than a thousand special forces
in the country backing the Syrian Democratic Forces.
The Free Syrian Army grew out of protests against the Assad regime that eventually turned violent. Along with other non-jihadist
rebel groups, it seeks the ouster of President Assad and democratic elections. After suffering a number of defeats, many of its members
defected to hardline militant groups. It garnered some support from the US and Turkey, but its strength has been greatly diminished.
Fighting between Syrian Kurds and Islamists has become its own conflict. The US-led coalition against the "Islamic State" has
backed the Syrian Democratic Forces, an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias. The Kurdish YPG militia is the main component of the
SDF. The Kurds have had a tacit understanding with Assad.
"Islamic State" (IS) took advantage of regional chaos to capture vast swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria in 2014. Seeking
to establish its own "caliphate," IS has become infamous for its fundamentalist brand of Islam and its mass atrocities. IS is facing
defeat in both countries after the US and Russia led separate military campaigns against the militant group.
IS is not the only terrorist group that has ravaged Syria. A number of jihadist militant groups are fighting in the conflict,
warring against various rebel factions and the Assad regime. One of the main jihadist factions is Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, which controls
most of Idlib province and has ties with al-Qaeda.
Iran has supported Syria, its only Arab ally, for decades. Eager to maintain its ally, Tehran has provided Damascus with strategic
assistance, military training and ground troops when the conflict emerged in 2011. The Iran-backed Lebanese Shiite militant group
Hezbollah also supports the Assad regime, fighting alongside Iranian forces and paramilitary groups in the country.
In Moscow, President Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the information was "very alarming," but added only the Russian
military could provide details.
Putin might raise the issue when meeting US President Donald Trump in Paris on November 11, Peskov told reporters.
The US Pentagon did not immediately comment on Fomin's claims.
The news of the alleged US-coordinated attack comes some two months after Russia lost a high-tech plane in Syria in an incident
Moscow says was caused
by Israel . Russia responded by pledging to supply Syrian forces with S-300 aerial defense systems.
US Special Forces Command wants to copy Russian firearms in the US to give away to proxies around the world
Wed,
Oct 10, 2018
|
500 words
4,029
45
Why would U.S. special forces want to manufacture Russian machine guns?
Just watch any video of a conflict such as
Iraq and Syria, and the answer becomes clear. Many of the combatants are using Russian or Soviet weapons, or local
copies thereof, from rifles to rocket launchers to heavy machine guns mounted on pickups. Which means that when U.S.
special forces provide some of these groups with weapons, they have to scrounge through the global arms market to buy
Russian hardware as well as spare parts.
So U.S. Special Forces Command, which oversees America's various commando units, has an idea: instead of buying
Russian weapons, why not build their own? That's why USSOCOM is asking U.S. companies to come up with a plan to
manufacture Russian and other foreign weapons.
The goal is to "develop an innovative domestic capability to produce fully functioning facsimiles of foreign-made
weapons that are equal to or better than what is currently being produced internationally," according to the USSOCOM
Small
Business Innovation Research proposal
.
"develop an innovative domestic capability to produce fully functioning
facsimiles of foreign-made weapons that are
equal to or better
than what
is currently being produced internationally,"
It is a good story. US needed so many AK-47 for African terrorists group, killing Blacks, they had
to build a new factory in Africa to handle demand. There were not that many AK-47 available on the
black market
Think about that. Look into a mirror and say slowly
- WE LIBERALS ARE TERRORISTS
"... On the ground in Syria, dead civilians - some of them children killed by US bombs - muddied the perfect script. Confused Syrian rebels - many who had called for foreign intervention to help crush the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – demanded to know how these airstrikes were meant to help them. ..."
"... The Syrian armed forces have spent little time on the ISIL threat because their focus has traditionally been on protecting their interests in Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, Hama – and the countryside in these areas – as well as towns and cities around the Lebanese and Jordanian borders. That changed when ISIL staged successful attacks on Mosul and created new geopolitical urgency for Assad"s allies – which triggered some major Syrian strikes against ISIL targets. ..."
"... Obama has managed to get the whole world singing from the same hymn sheet in just two months, including, and this is important, the three states - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey - most instrumental in financing, weaponizing and assisting ISIL and other extremist militias inside Syria. ..."
"... For three years, Washington has overlooked and even encouraged illegal and dangerous behaviors from its regional Sunni allies – all in service of defeating Assad. With all eyes on America and expectations that Obama will fail in his War on Terror just like his predecessors, the US is going to have to pull some impressive tricks from its sleeves. ..."
"... Ideally, these would include the shutting down of key border crossings (Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon); punishing financiers of terror and inhibiting the flow of funds and assistance from Washington"s regional allies; cutting off key revenue streams; tightening immigration policies to stem the flow of foreign fighters; disrupting communications networks of targeted terrorist groups; broader intelligence sharing with all regional players; and empowering existing armies and allied militias inside the "chaos zone" to lead and execute ground operations. ..."
"... If there is the slightest deviation from the "guarantees" provided by the US, this trio has plenty of room to maneuver. Iran, for one, has dallied with the Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan and they know how to cause some pain where it counts. The Russians, for that matter, have many playgrounds in which to thwart US ambitions – most urgently in Ukraine and in Afghanistan, from which the US hopes to withdraw billions of dollars" worth of military equipment by the end of 2014. ..."
Undoubtedly the attacks were timed to occur on the eve of the annual gathering of world
leaders at the United Nations, so "Coalition" partners could cluster behind the decision to
bomb a sovereign state, uninvited.
The irony, of course, is that they are doing so at the UN – the global political body
that pledges to uphold international law, peace and stability, and the sanctity of the
nation-state unit.
The goal this week will be to keep the "momentum" on a "narrative" until it sinks in.
On day one, heads of state from Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, the UK and France were paraded onto
the podium to drum in the urgency of American strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL), Jabhat al-Nusra and other militant groups inside Syria.
Every American official – past and present - in the White House rolodex was hooked up
to a microphone to deliver canned sound bites and drive home those "messages." In between,
video-game-quality footage of US strikes hitting their targets was aired on the hour; clips of
sleek fighter jets refueling midair and the lone Arab female fighter pilot were dropped
calculatingly into social media networks.
The global crew of journalists that descends annually on the UN for this star-studded
political event, enthused over US President Barak Obama"s ability to forge a coalition that
included five Arab Sunni states – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain and the UAE.
Few mentioned that these partners are a mere fig leaf for Obama, providing his Syria
campaign with Arab and Muslim legitimacy where he otherwise would have none. Not that any of
these five monarchies enjoy "legitimacy" in their own kingdoms – kings and emirs aren"t
elected after all – and two of these Wahhabi states are directly responsible for the
growth and proliferation of the Wahhabi-style extremism targeted by US missiles.
Even fewer spent time dissecting the
legality of US attacks on Syria or on details of the US "mission" – as in, "what
next?"
But with a mission this crippled at the outset, it didn"t take long for an alternative view
to peek through the thick media fog.
On the ground in Syria, dead civilians - some of them children killed by US bombs -
muddied the perfect script. Confused Syrian rebels - many who had called for foreign
intervention to help crush the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – demanded
to know how these airstrikes were meant to help them.
Sunni Arabs would be radicalized by these strikes, they warned, as ideologically sympathetic
citizens of the Arab coalition states took to their information channels and swore revenge for
airstrikes against ISIL and al-Nusra.
The Syrian government, for the most part, remained mute – whether to save face or
because they could "smell" the gains coming. Contrary to Washington"s prevailing narrative,
privately the story was that the US had informed the Assad government of both the timing and
targets of the attacks in advance.
Sources say that the US even provided "guarantees" that no Syrian military or government
interests would be targeted. A Reuters exclusive claiming that the US went so far as to provide
assurances to Iran, suggests
this version is closer to the truth. When US airstrikes against Syria were on the table a year
ago, the various parties went through a similar game of footsies. Last September, the Americans
backed off – allegedly because of communications from their adversaries that even a
single US missile would trigger a warfront against Israel. This time, Washington needed to know
that scenario was not going to be activated, and this week they offered the necessary
guarantees to ensure it.
Although the Russians and Iranians have publicly lashed out at the illegality of US strikes,
they do not seem too worried. Both know – like the Syrian government – that these
air attacks could be a net gain for their "Axis."
Firstly, the United States is now doing some useful heavy-lifting for Assad, at no real cost
to him. The Syrian armed forces have spent little time on the ISIL threat because their
focus has traditionally been on protecting their interests in Aleppo, Damascus, Homs, Hama
– and the countryside in these areas – as well as towns and cities around the
Lebanese and Jordanian borders. That changed when ISIL staged successful attacks on Mosul and
created new geopolitical urgency for Assad"s allies – which triggered some major Syrian
strikes against ISIL targets.
But to continue along this path, the Syrians would have to divert energy and resources from
key battles, and so the American strikes have provided a convenient solution for the time
being.
Secondly, the Syrians have spent three years unsuccessfully pushing their narrative that the
terrorism threat they face internally is going to become a regional and global problem. The US
campaign is a Godsend in this respect – Obama has managed to get the whole world
singing from the same hymn sheet in just two months, including, and this is important, the
three states - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey - most instrumental in financing, weaponizing and
assisting ISIL and other extremist militias inside Syria.
Syria, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and a host of like-minded emerging powers are pleased about
this new laser focus on jihadi terror and for the accompanying resource shift to address the
problem.
Thirdly, the US has now been placed in the hot seat and will be expected to match words with
action. For three years, Washington has overlooked and even encouraged illegal and
dangerous behaviors from its regional Sunni allies – all in service of defeating Assad.
With all eyes on America and expectations that Obama will fail in his War on Terror just like
his predecessors, the US is going to have to pull some impressive tricks from its
sleeves.
Ideally, these would include the shutting down of key border crossings (Turkey, Jordan,
Lebanon); punishing financiers of terror and inhibiting the flow of funds and assistance from
Washington"s regional allies; cutting off key revenue streams; tightening immigration policies
to stem the flow of foreign fighters; disrupting communications networks of targeted terrorist
groups; broader intelligence sharing with all regional players; and empowering existing armies
and allied militias inside the "chaos zone" to lead and execute ground operations.
Thus far, there are signs that some of these things are already happening, with possibly
more to come.
Now for the fun part. The Syrians, Iranians and Russians do not fundamentally trust
Washington or its intentions. The suspicion is that the US is on another one of its
regime-change missions, displaying its usual rogue-state behavior by violating the territorial
integrity of a sovereign state under false pretenses, and that it will shortly revert to
targeting the Syrian government.
While they can see clear gains from the current level of US intervention – as
distasteful as they find it - they are watching carefully as events unfold.
If there is the slightest deviation from the "guarantees" provided by the US, this trio
has plenty of room to maneuver. Iran, for one, has dallied with the Americans in both Iraq and
Afghanistan and they know how to cause some pain where it counts. The Russians, for that
matter, have many playgrounds in which to thwart US ambitions – most urgently in Ukraine
and in Afghanistan, from which the US hopes to withdraw
billions of dollars" worth of military equipment by the end of 2014.
All understand that Washington has just assumed a risky public posture and that many, many
things can go wrong. The Sunni Arab fig leaf can disappear in a nano-second if domestic
pressures mount or revenge attacks take place internally. Information could leak about
continued assistance to terrorist militias from one or more of its coalition partners – a
huge embarrassment for Washington and its wobbly Coalition. ISIL will almost certainly act
against coalition partner soft-targets, like carrying out further kidnappings and executions.
Continued airstrikes will almost definitely result in a growing civilian casualty count,
turning those "hearts and minds" to stone. Syrian rebels could swiftly turn against the US
intervention and radicalize further. Massive displacement caused by airstrikes could exacerbate
the humanitarian crisis.And as in all other past US military War-on-Terror adventures,
terrorism could thrive and proliferate in quantum leaps.
As Moscow-based political analyst Vladimir Frolov
noted to the Washington Post:
The United States has underestimated the complexity of the situation before, so let's just
wait until they run into problems.
The idea that US military engagement could continue for the long-term is unlikely
given the myriad things that can go wrong fast. Obama is going to be reluctant to have his last
two years in office defined by the hazardous Syrian conflict – after all, he was to be
the president who extracted America from unessential wars.
But the most compelling reason that this Coalition will not pass the first hurdle is that
its key members have entirely different ambitions and strategic targets.
Over a decade ago, these US-engineered coalitions were wealthier, less-burdened and shared
common goals. Today, many of the coalition members face domestic economic and political
uncertainties – and several states are directly responsible for giving rise to ISIL. How
can the Coalition fight ISIL and support it, all at once?
What"s missing is a formula, a strategy, a unified worldview that can be equally as
determined as the ideological adversary it faces.
Down the road, we will discover that the only coalition able and willing to fight extremism
does indeed come from inside the region, but importantly, from within the conflict zone itself:
Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. For starters, they are utterly vested in the outcome of their
efforts – and would lead with political solutions alongside military ones. Those elusive
boots-on-the-ground that everyone is seeking? They live it. Pit that group
against Obama"s Coalition-of-the-Clueless any day and you know which side would win
handily.
The question is, can this Coalition stomach a solution it is working so hard to avoid? Will
it partner with vital regional players that were foes only a few months ago? It is doubtful.
That would require a worldview shift that Washington is still too irrational to embrace.
"... Well, we know where Mattis is going when he leaves the Pentagon. Nice work if you can get it. ..."
"... Seriously, anyone taking a knife to the Pentagon budget is putting a knife top their throat, unless they have support. ..."
"... Gen Mattis wants to save big money stop sending US forces to needless adventures. ..."
"... On top of the firing, I found the last three or four paragraphs all about insider trading as opposed to job performance, goals, budget cutting, not even budget accountability . . . Personalities over performance -- holy petolies. ..."
"... Given that the United States spends more money on defense than the next seven countries COMBINED including Russia and China it's not a question of how much you spend it's a question of how well. Until DOD passes that financial audit that all other agencies are obligated to do DOD should be get any increase in funding. ..."
"... When folks learn that the DOD is the swamp, then we can start having a conversation. ..."
"... "Lap Dog" Mattis. ..."
"... The Trump Administration is the most incompetent and corrupt since Warren G. Harding. There is no swamp draining going on. It is just a fight on who occupies it. ..."
Hired to Drain the Swamp, Fired in Less Than a Year'This is the Boeing mafia in
all of its glory,' one DoD official said of John 'Jay' Gibson's mysterious demise. By
Mark
Perry •
September 26, 2018
The
Pentagon ( Frontpage /
Shutterstock ) On April 4, 2003, Col. Joseph Dowdy -- whose 1st Marine Regiment was then
fighting its way through a tangle of Iraqi villages south of Baghdad -- was called to the tent
of Gen. James Mattis and told he was being relieved of his command. A career Marine, Dowdy was
stunned: Mattis's action in the midst of a battlefield fight was nearly unprecedented and, as
Dowdy knew, would mark the end of his military career. Adding to the humiliation, Mattis told
Dowdy to remove his sidearm and hand it to him. "We're going to give you a rest," he said.
Dowdy had known that his job was in danger, the result of complaints from Mattis and his
staff that he wasn't moving his regiment quickly enough. But it's not as if Dowdy was taking
his time: his troopers had been involved in bitter firefights against tenacious "Saddam
Fedayeen" killers every day for the previous two weeks. But Dowdy had no choice in the matter,
so while he objected to Mattis's action he packed up his gear, called his wife, returned to the
U.S. and retired from the Marine Corps.
That Mattis acts quickly and decisively is part of his lore -- it's what good Marines do.
But while quick and decisive might work on the battlefield, they're not always a good fit for a
secretary of defense. Mattis learned this earlier this month, after he fired John H. "Jay"
Gibson II, the Pentagon's first-ever Chief Management Officer and its third highest ranking
official. The reason for the firing, as TheWall Street Journal's Gordon Lubold
reported on September 5, was for "lack of performance."
The firing was immediately controversial, spurring under-the-radar resentments among senior
defense officials in the Pentagon's E-Ring where military and civilian managers huddle to run
the world's largest bureaucracy. "This doesn't make any sense," a senior Pentagon official told
TAC . "Jay was CMO for seven months; he hadn't even gotten his staff in place."
John H. 'Jay' Gibson II (U.S. Government)
Gibson came to Washington to oversee Mattis's attempt to cut waste from the Pentagon budget
by identifying savings that would lessen the ballooning impact of the Trump administration's
$670 billion defense spending proposal. Armed with an impressive resume (including a successful
stint as an assistant secretary of the Air Force and deputy undersecretary of defense for
management reform, where his efforts saved billions of dollars), Gibson was tasked with
reforming Pentagon procedures in buying and developing weapons and in managing logistics and
supply, technology systems, community services, human resources, and health care.
Gibson was given a broad mandate to "shake up the system," which the deputy defense
secretary Patrick Shanahan (the department's number two official and Gibson's boss) admitted
would cause "screaming and yelling" from the Pentagon bureaucracy.
Even so, Gibson was told he would have the Trump administration's support -- which is why he
decided to give up his post as president of XCOR Aerospace, a Texas company that develops
rocket engines and space launch systems. "Jay did this over his wife's objections," a friend of
Gibson and a senior official at a major private sector financial institution told TAC in
a wide-ranging interview, "because he thought he could make a difference. He is a cracker-jack
administrator; he knows how to dig and dig. So he came into D.C., started digging into the
Pentagon budget and was fired. In my world, when that happens it isn't because you're doing a
lousy job, but because you're stepping on the wrong toes."
In fact, as the senior Pentagon official with whom I spoke says, the toes that Gibson
stepped on belonged to Patrick Shanahan, the deputy secretary of defense and a former vice
president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems, a major Pentagon contractor.
Shanahan and Gibson had a falling out in August, according to the senior Pentagon official with
whom I spoke, and Shanahan reported the difficulty to Mattis -- "who pulled a Dowdy." Put
simply, this official adds, when the "screaming and yelling" from the Pentagon's senior
bureaucracy reached a fever pitch at the end of the summer, Mattis and Shanahan decided that
firing Gibson would be easier than defending him.
"I am not familiar with the details of what happened here and I wouldn't want to speculate,"
Todd Harrison, an official with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (and a
well-known defense budget expert) says. "But I think that anyone in the new CMO position was
signing on to the toughest job in Washington. It's one thing to identify waste, and another to
actually get rid of it. The truth is that waste is built into the Pentagon budget; if you
eliminate it, you eliminate jobs." A Pentagon official confirms this, but adds that "firing an
official charged with making reforms for 'lack of performance' is laughable. Who are these guys
trying to kid? The truth is that if Jay didn't perform, he'd still have his job."
The timing of Gibson's firing, just weeks after the death of Senate Armed Services Committee
heavyweight John McCain, also raises uncomfortable questions. "The minute Gibson was fired,
McCain would have had Mattis, Shanahan, and Gibson on the carpet in his office, asking them
what the hell they were doing," a senior congressional staffer who monitors Pentagon personnel
issues notes. "That's not going to happen now."
In fact, McCain had little love for Shanahan, telling aides that his appointment raised
conflict of interest issues. McCain's worries were aired when he grilled Shanahan on answers
the Boeing executive gave to written questions posed to him by the committee in June 2017. It
was a classic McCain scorcher: "The answers that you gave to the questions," he told Shanahan,
"whether intentionally or unintentionally, were almost condescending, and I'm not overjoyed
that you came from one of the five corporations that receive 90 percent of taxpayers' dollars.
I have to have confidence that the fox is not going to be put back into the henhouse." McCain
was livid.
"Not a good beginning," McCain told Shanahan. "Do not do that again, Mr. Shanahan, or I will
not take your name up for a vote before this committee. Am I perfectly clear?" Shanahan nodded
his agreement. "Very clear," he said.
As it turns out, Shanahan's appointment resulted from a series of contentious negotiations
between Trump transition official Mira Ricardel and retired Adm. Kevin Sweeney, Mattis's chief
of staff. "There was no love loss between Mattis and Ricardel," the senior Pentagon civilian
with whom TAC spoke says. "So the SecDef told Sweeney to deal with her. Sweeney is a
tough guy and Mira has sharp elbows, so this got nasty."
The skirmishing got so bad that when Ricardel said she wanted to be the Pentagon's
undersecretary for policy, Mattis killed the idea, with Ricardel sidelined as the
undersecretary of commerce for export administration. But Ricardel got her revenge: she not
only successfully slotted Shanahan as Mattis's number two, she was named as deputy to John
Bolton, appointed by Trump to succeed H.R. McMaster as the administration's national security
advisor. "It's the ultimate irony," the senior Pentagon official says. "Jim Mattis ignored H.R.
and he ends up with Mira Ricardel. Incredible."
That Jay Gibson has been caught in the Mattis-Ricardel crossfire is an open secret at the
Pentagon, where key officials speculate that Ricardel's promotion of Shanahan has less to do
with his commitment to Pentagon budget reform than to the fact that the two were close
colleagues at Boeing, where Ricardel served for nine years (from 2006 to 2015) as vice
president of strategic missile and defense systems. That is to say, Jay Gibson's still
unexplained firing has reinforced John McCain's worries that the fox would end up guarding the
henhouse.
"This is the Boeing mafia in all of its glory," the senior Pentagon official says. "Anyone
who comes in here [to the Pentagon] will always have Jay Gibson's experience as a marker. You
think anyone who's willing to take on the bureaucracy is going to want that job? No way. Budget
reform is dead, d-e-a-d dead. So much for draining the swamp."
"Even so, Gibson was told he would have the Trump administration's support -- "
Look these are the issues in which the executive has to be made of sterner stuff. I suspect
that the tag line after the articles title heading is more accurate and that has probably
nothing to do with COS being quick on the draw.
Seriously, anyone taking a knife to the Pentagon budget is putting a knife top their
throat, unless they have support.
Gen Mattis wants to save big money stop sending US forces to needless
adventures.
On top of the firing, I found the last three or four paragraphs all about insider
trading as opposed to job performance, goals, budget cutting, not even budget accountability .
. . Personalities over performance -- holy petolies.
In this day and age there seems to be no other tune.
All federal agencies are by congressional mandate obligated to pass financial audits EVERY
year. DOD hasn't done one in over 10 years. Mattis supposedly was "working" on one for this
year. Where is it?
We see endless stories of waste, fraud, and mismanagement in DOD. The littoral combat ship
that more than doubled in price and clearly can't do what it was designed to do. So many
others.
Given that the United States spends more money on defense than the next seven countries
COMBINED including Russia and China it's not a question of how much you spend it's a question
of how well. Until DOD passes that financial audit that all other agencies are obligated to do
DOD should be get any increase in funding.
The Trump Administration is the most incompetent and corrupt since Warren G. Harding. There
is no swamp draining going on. It is just a fight on who occupies it.
The Trump Administration taking months to fill a position and then not having a support
staff in place after 7 months is totally incompetent.
"The Pentagon made clear that US forces are fully prepared to engage Russian troops. "The
United States does not seek to fight the Russians" a Pentagon spokesman said. "However, the
United States will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend US,
coalition or partner forces."
Really?? What psychopaths in the pentagon think this to be the case
Americans need to understand that complete psycho ccksckers like Groeteschele are as real
in 2018 as they were in 1964 .
Don't you get it?? You have no right at all to be in Syria, forming 'partnerships' with
'rebels' or anyone else!! Get the fuck out!! Your presence is a violation of sovereignty, as
you were not invited by the elected government!
"... We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as a loan shark's leg-breaker. ..."
Freedland recently put this argument on Newsnight.
It is flawed to the point of dishonesty.
He talks of removing assets as if the process was being conducted under laboratory
conditions. There are ten nations enmeshed in a warzone with numerous factions under no one's
control. It is magical thinking that cannot be achieved and will only result in rapid,
uncontrolled escalation. The idea that there will be no collateral damage is laughable and I
regret to suggest that it is deliberately misleading.
Moreover, in engaging Assad when he is on the brink of victory, the Syrian Civil War will
be extended. The Syrian people will then pay the price.
Should Assad subsequently fall - and that is the actual aim of intervention - then Syria
will become another anarchic wasteland ruled over by fundamentalist warlords. The spiral of
migration will be renewed bringing loons wrapped in the dispossessed to our own streets.
Worse, the militants next stop will be Lebanon and then Israel will be directly involved.
Freedland advocates acting against Assad without even attempting to predict the consequences.
At the very least I would expect the usual misdirection 'of course this time we must have a
plan for rebuilding Syria', secure in the knowledge that by that time there will be another
crisis and Syria can be left in entropy.
No good can come from military intervention. The satisfaction of commentators that the
right thing has been done is an irrelevance. The right thing is always just public relations.
Every bit of ruthless geopolitics has to have a casus belli to make the killing all righteous
and unavoidable. It has always been thus. For resources to be expended on this kind of scale
there has to be a rock solid bit of bankable realpolitik. In this case its the struggle for
regional hegemony between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Syria can either be part of a supply chain
selling Sunni gas/oil to Europe or Shi'a gas/oil to Europe. This is about killing Syrians for
the glory of Saudi Arabia. You can see why there has to be a casus belli because thats not
something that can be sold. We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and
the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The
benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as
a loan shark's leg-breaker.
It is therefore my contention that Freedland is promoting an immoral act that will have
serious consequences without offering any serious improvement in the situation. This is
arguably the most dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile crisis and an analysis that
advocates pouring oil on the flames is either ridiculously stupid or calculatedly
duplicitous.
"Up to" 13,000 "opponents" killed over five years during a period of war. I'm assuming that
number of "opponents" includes a large number of out and out terrorists who have thrown the
country into chaos.
The UK and France bares a heavy responsibility for the current situation in Syria. The
cavalier attitude that the ConDems took to international law during the Arab spring
encouraged the Saudi s and their proxies to distablise the recognised Govt. Assad is no
paragon of virtue, but prior to the insurgency steps were in place to make the country a
better place for its citizens, and whilst its true political dissent was not allowed, people
could live their lives and go about their business in safety.
The spring of 2016 in Washington, D.C. was unusually warm, as I remember, perhaps
foreshadowing the raucous year yet to come. One night a group of journalists and policy hands
gathered at the Dupont Circle bar Rebellion to commiserate. No one knew it yet but it was the
closing moment in Act One of the Trump revolution; our 21st-century P.T. Barnum was well on his
way from presidential impossibility to presumptive nominee. Yet no one was talking about Trump.
That evening, perhaps bespeaking of both the sleeplessness and sexlessness of those gathered,
the conversation focused on a new addition to Senator Ted Cruz's national security team: Frank
Gaffney, the former Reagan hand and uber-foreign policy hawk.
Back in 2016, Cruz -- capable, erudite, and reviled -- was positioning himself as the last
great hope of movement conservatism. The only candidate who could still plausibly defeat Trump,
or individually force a convention brawl, Cruz wanted to convert his early primary brand -- a
kind of diluted libertarianism mixed with cultural evangelicalism -- into something more
conventionally Republican. Gone was the poaching of the platforms of Rand Paul and Ben Carson,
and in was Lindsey Graham who had previously called the junior Texas senator "demonic."
"This is what we're supposed to oppose Trump with? The paragon of reason, Frank Gaffney?"
intoned one policy veteran sympathetic to a restrained foreign policy and, correspondingly, to
Paul, who had only recently dropped out of the race. In truth, Cruz was simply trying to
replicate a trick mastered by Trump -- a sort of Heisenberg Uncertainty machination of modern
conservative politics -- occupying, at the same time, the least and most hawkish spaces on the
political field. For every enthrallingly refreshing "Iraq was a big fat mistake" from candidate
Trump, there was "we're going to bomb the s**t out of ISIS" and promises to restart the torture
program of the Bush years.
Gaffney's recent career, now re-ascendent in Trump's orbit, is perhaps most emblematic of
that conflict of vision.
When you talk to Gaffney, as I did in his Washington offices at the Center for Security
Policy in August of 2017, you get the sense that he and his allies think that the September 11
attacks are now almost a distraction. For the hardcore -- and this includes some principals at
more mainstream outfits such as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) -- the
true, largely unencumbered villain in America's war on terror is either -- pick your poison --
the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah. For Gaffney, and his life's work stands as testament to
this, it's decidedly the former. Anxieties about the alleged power of the the Muslim
Brotherhood are rife in the publications put out by his Center for Security Policy. This often
lapses into matters more sinister and conspiratorial: the enemy within, and the enemy itself.
His center's books -- and he readily gave me more than 10 -- have titles such as Star
Spangled Sharia and Bridge-Building to Nowhere: The Catholic Church's Case Study in
Interfaith Delusion . The texts allege elaborate financial and political influence
maneuvers by Muslim agents, most concerningly the Brotherhood. Gaffney even intimated to me,
before backtracking, that Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress,
could be a Brother, or at least compromised by the Brotherhood.
"The assertion that the dangers that we're facing, most obviously post-9/11, have nothing to
do with Islam and [that] the people who are fighting us with terrorism or in Afghanistan or
Iraq or elsewhere, are actually hijacking a great Abrahamic faith and a religion of peace and
all of that, is simply uninformed," Gaffney told me. "What the authorities of Islam call
sharia , has, at its core, our destruction." He added that adherents to sharia
"are obliged to engage in jihad, of one kind or another, to impose it on everybody else."
Yet Gaffney, in the seventh month of the presidency of the man who once told CNN "I think
Islam hates us," seemed lukewarm at best over Donald Trump.
The week I met with him came just after the largest bloodletting of the administration: the
rapid-fire ousters of key figures who had been with Trump during the campaign -- Reince
Priebus, Sean Spicer, Anthony Scaramucci, and Stephen K. Bannon. From where Gaffney was
sitting, the White House inner circle was now a mishmash of the kind of conventional
Republicans -- James Mattis, Rex Tillerson, H.R. McMaster, and John Kelly -- who, as Peter
Beinart reported in The Atlantic , had long "treated Gaffney as a pariah." The so-called axis of adults
was unlikely to prioritize fighting for the embattled travel ban in the courts, or pursuing
regime change in Iran or Qatar -- "the ATM of the Muslim Brotherhood," as Jonathan Schanzer of
FDD put it in a phone conversation with me.
Since that discussion, however, Gaffneyism has experienced a clear uptick in fortunes.
Gaffney's relevance stems from his relationship with Trump's national security advisor, John
Bolton, as well as the chief of staff of Bolton's National Security Council, Fred Fleitz.
Fleitz has worked as chief for both men. As I detailed in the Spectator
USA, Bolton was eventually able to leverage his media appearances into one of the
most senior positions in the government. (Gaffney is also a fellow, though not parallel,
traveler of Bannon's.)
Both the genius and the secret of the modern anti-establishment right is, like Trump, its
ability to occupy two places at once. Bannon's former outlet Breitbart News , where
Gaffney is a regular radio guest (as was Bolton previously), is proof positive. Breitbart has
staunchly defended most actions of the Netanyahu government in Israel while condemning the
Pentagon for its support of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. On foreign policy, the Trump
coalition is a tenuous alliance between some of the GOP's least interventionist voices, Rand
Paul as well as Bannon on most issues, and some of its most interventionist voices, like
Gaffney and Bolton.
But there is one area where the hawks in this arrangement have prevailed: cutting Iran down
to size.
In fact, it hasn't been much of a fight: Trump leaving the Iran nuclear deal in some fashion
was never really in doubt. As I
reported last fall, at one point, the fight inside Trump circles was essentially between
two plans to exit the deal as written during the Obama years: Bolton, Bannon, and Gaffney's
plan versus the more restrained architecture favored by the FDD.
Gaffney didn't get full sway over that decision, but he didn't have to.
His biggest victory was the president's selection of Bolton. While Bolton himself campaigned
to get the job at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), it was Gaffney
who was most direct: "You know, everybody says it's great to be back at CPAC, but nobody means
it like I do," he said, declaring, "The president of the United States must fire H.R. McMaster
and hire John Bolton!" Years back, Gaffney had denounced CPAC's organizing body, the American
Conservative Union (ACU), for its support of Suhail Khan, a Muslim former Bush administration
official he accused of being an agent of the Brotherhood. The dispute had played out
prominently in the national news.
And that's really the handle: going forward, will Gaffney's very real policy influence be
sundered by what some see as a penchant for wacky prejudice? He isn't without real influence,
and as Peter Beinart argued earlier this year, Bolton has helped rehabilitate him even further
on the right. "The man has one of the best minds in D.C.," said Raheem Kassam, who was raised
Muslim and is the former editor of Breitbart London. He added, however: "Genius doesn't come
without eccentricity."
One example is that, in conducting research for this article, two sources familiar with the
matter told me of Gaffney's history of compiling opposition research dossiers on those who fall
out of his favor. One recent case involved a former member of Gaffney's circle (a clique that
includes Ginny Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas) who became
romantically involved with a Muslim -- apparently a bridge too far. And Gaffney's flare-ups
with Grover Norquist, the conservative tax policy kingmaker who married a Muslim woman in 2004,
are well documented. A
dossier put out by CSP and its allies on the subject reads: "The Islamists' -- and their
Enablers' -- Assault on the Right: The Case Against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan."
Cracks on policy have shown. In addition to holding views on Islam that are emphatically
outside the mainstream, Gaffney, doctrinaire hawkish in a way that the president is not,
recently joined in on the criticism of Trump's Helsinki summit, while his center has repeatedly
urged regime change as the best course in North Korea. After Trump's meeting with Vladimir
Putin, Gaffney said Trump could be making President Obama look strong by comparison. In a
published statement, he intoned: "President Trump needs now to clarify -- and walk back -- any
mandates for institutionalizing Moscow's agenda in ways that would make the appalling
Obama-Clinton 'reset' with Russia seem robust."
That's the real question for Bolton's NSC and this Republican Party: as Trump continues to
remake American conservatism in his image, at what point, if any, does Gaffney go from lodestar
to liability?
Curt Mills is the foreign affairs reporter at The National Interest, where he
covers the State Department, National Security Council, and the Trump presidency.MORE
FROM THIS AUTHOR
Gaffney's a crank. This kind of attention only encourages him.
He and other neoconservatives didn't get the good hard boot in the face they so richly
deserved after the Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen disasters they caused. Happily for
Christendom, it seems that omission will be remedied in the not too distant future.
Note that at the February CPAC conference in which Gaffney endorsed Bolton for Trump's
NSA, he also called for "regime change" in China.
Amazing. Gaffney sees the Super-Power U.S. as a giant hegemonic anaconda that can swallow
anything no matter how big.
Note too that Gaffney's Center for Security Policy took in over $7,000,000 in 2016, (last
posted IRS Form 990). Where does that money come from? Especially given that Gaffney is a
supposed "crank". He obviously has benefactors who want to leverage his fear-monger schtick
for their own purposes.
And OBTW, Gaffney pays himself over $350 Grand via a crony Board of Directors who
authorize that kind of mad money. Not bad scratch for just showing up and gas-bagging.
In the end, Gaffney is the quintessential parasitic Beltway Hack, i.e., paid large for
mind dumps scripted for his benefactors.
HD Id agree with the Zionist puppet masters (which I normally think of as neoconservatives
and neoliberals).
I have to wonder whether Trumps embrace of hawks and warmongerers is to placate and
passify them so they don't join the ranks of never Trumpers, Russian colluders and other
manufactured and fictional stories to undermine the Trump Administration.
So far he has embraced them with a military buildup, tough talk with North Korea,
withdrawing from the JCPOA, chastising NATO, waging trade wars and sending US ships into the
South China Sea (to the consternation of China) and sending US troops to African to fight
Islamic radicalism (there is more than one place in the world where Islamic wars are being
fought).
But at the same time, Trump has not fallen into the trap of GBushII in being their lapdog
following their dictates nor has he opposed them withdrawn and starved the military like
Obama.
Trump has used hawks to appear strong and strengthen his defenses but he has not created
any new military confrontations which gives me confidence that Trump knows how to handle
powerful constituencies. Lets hope he continues to do so.
Interesting article. There is a lot to digest but does the writer have evidence to the
contrary of what Mr. Gaffney is saying in his reports.
I read Robert Spencer's book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" years ago and it
made quite an impression on me.
Sometimes these so called fringe people are right on track but so far ahead of popular
thought that no one wants to believe what they are saying until it is too late.
This is one of many really disgusting people that the media has been having on for
years.
How about asking this question:
how come they never have a critic of these neo-con policy guys?
How come no critics of what these guys who peddle hate against a whole religion and
nationalities are ever on?
But these neo-cons are on all the time.
And, let's not keep kidding ourselves and each other-every 'think tank' that has an 'expert'
on foreign affairs is in that neo-con group and the hosts on any network, cable and
otherwise, don't even tell the viewers what the hell the think tank/s is about!
They are one of the top, if not the number one reason why the American public knows either
nothing about what the Middle-East situations are, or they have a stupid slanted view and it
is always against anything Arabic, Palestinian and such
you know it and I know it
can you dig it
thanks, this is,
dear Fayez
"Sometimes these so called fringe people are right on track but so far ahead of popular
thought that no one wants to believe what they are saying until it is too late."
like the fruit-cakes out in Idaho jabbering about "ZOG" back in the 1980s and 90s. We knew
better didn't we? No danger of excessive Israeli influence on US politicians or policy, and
even if there were, what possible negative consequences could there be? It's not like the
Muslims would get all riled up and knock down the World Trade Center or something. Right? Ha
ha ha ha! Only paranoids and anti-semites believe that sort of nonsense.
@The Dean, Stitch In Time
I think it isn't too hard to recognize Gaffney & Co what they are: pro Israeli, pro-Likud
propagandists. I am cool with that. A number of folks on the right fast becoming Russophiles
for a variety of reasons, that isn't illegal either.
In our history we went through times when various groups advocated in the interest of country
A or B and we are still here.
So Gaffney and the likes can spew nonsense as long as we recognize what he is up to.
No need for rank antisemitism, using phrases like ZOG sending out happy merchant memes,
because that instantly eliminates you from any sort of reasonable discussion.
During the Reagan administration Gaffney was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy under neocon Richard Perle (aka "Prince of Darkness").
In April 1987, Gaffney was nominated to the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs. Unfortunately for Gaffney–but fortunately for
America–he served in that position for only seven months during which time he was
deliberately and systematically excluded by senior Reagan administration officials from the
then-ongoing arms control talks with the Soviet Union. In Nov, 1987 Gaffney was forced out of
the Pentagon and immediately began a campaign criticizing President Reagan for his efforts to
bring about an arms control agreement with the USSR.
"In a 1997 column for The Washington Times, Gaffney alleged that a seismic incident in
Russia was actually a nuclear detonation at that nation's Novaya Zemlya test site, indicating
Russia was violating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTB). (Subsequent scientific analysis
of Novaya Zemlya confirmed the event was a routine earthquake.) Reporting on the allegation,
the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists observed that, following its publication, 'fax machines
around Washington, D.C. and across the country poured out pages detailing Russian duplicity.
They came from Frank Gaffney'." (Wikipedia)
It probably won't add anything to this discussion for me to say that Gaffney is a
dangerous whack-job, so I'm not going to call Gaffney a dangerous whack-job.
"I think it isn't too hard to recognize Gaffney & Co what they are: pro Israeli,
pro-Likud propagandists. I am cool with that."
I'm not. Trillions of dollars. Thousands of American dead. Tens of thousands of American
with ruined brain, amputated limbs, grievous wounds that haven't healed.
That's a big price to pay for Gaffney and Co. and their sick foreign policy
prescriptions.
Too big.
It's past time they were shut up and expelled from American public life. It's not anymore
about mere differences of opinion, matters over which decent people can disagree. There's
real evil here. And real damage to America.
So Gaffney and the likes can spew nonsense as long as we recognize what he is up
to."
The opportunity cost of allowing the neocons to impregnate our national and international
life is too high. Iraq will forever be a blotch on our national soul. Their embedded power
must never be underestimated. It must be understood in the context of what they really want.
Which country do they actually support? It is difficult to include the U.S. as a beneficiary
in their neverending lust for more wars. Now, as folks like TAC, seek a reason as to why the
main front will be an attack on free speech. Ask yourself -why? Who fears free speech?
Frank Gaffney is an ironic figure. Today he leads the Center for Security Policy which
purports to expose Muslim Brotherhood influence operations in the US. 20 years ago he was
part of American Committee for Peace in Chechnya which wrote apologia for Chechen militants
who worked closely with Al Qaeda. The leader of the Chechen rebels was a Saudi born man
personally dispatched by Osama bin Laden so this connection was not a secret. ACPC didn't
just have Gaffney, but also Bill Kristol, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and James Woolsey to name a
few. It also recieved funding from the FDD and NED so it wasn't a rogue operation by any
means. Considering this Frank Gaffney's commitment to combating Islamic extremism seems
dubious at best. He warrants a closer look if anyone does.
In my opinion the Centre for Security Policy is NOT into just "spewing hate." Listen to
their podcasts and read their policy position papers. Look down the lists of their guest
speakers and interviewees: they are mostly the old school realist (not neocon) conservative
national security apparatus. Their attitude is there are three tremendous national security
threats that in each case have elements THAT IN THE EXPERIENCE OF TOP MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
agents have proved themselves time & time again simply NOT WORTHY OF BEING TRUSTED and
that if the USA gives them a "trust blank cheque" they would surely lose a major conflict,
just as much as France "trusted" that its vaunted Maginot Line was sufficient to keep a
"cowed" Prussian-led German Army & the Germans would never be so foolish to attempt
another invasion of France. THe most talked about danger at the moment by Gaffney and its
informative Centre is the danger of an EMP attack, which is surely neither "hate" nor
"wackiness."
This is a provocation/false flag operation completely in style of Steele dossier. So MI6 links might exist. Among "candidates"
They missed late Senator McCain, who was involved with Steele dossier. They also included two definitely bogus candidates
(Jarvanka and Melania)
BTW in 2008, the world's richest man, Carlos Slim, saved the Times from bankruptcy. "When that guy saves your company, you dance
to his tune." --
Carlos
Slim- The New York Times' Sugar Daddy
Don McGahn
We know the White House counsel is a short-timer -- planning to leave in the fall. We also know that McGahn has clashed with
Trump repeatedly in the past -- refusing Trump's order to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. And McGahn has already shown a
willingness to look out for the broader public good, sitting down for more than 30 hours with special counsel Robert Mueller's
team to aid their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Dan Coats
The Director of National Intelligence is very much a part of the long-term Washington establishment, having spent not one but
two stints in the nation's capital as a senator from Indiana. Coats has also shown a tendency to veer from the Trump songbook.
Informed of Trump's plans to invite Russian president Vladimir Putin for a summit in the United States this fall, Coats said
"That is going to be special" -- a line that drew the ire of the President.
Kellyanne Conway
Conway, a White House counselor, is someone who has survived for a very long time in the political game. And not by being dumb
or not understanding which way the wind blows. Plus, there is the X-factor of her husband -- George -- whose
Twitter
feed regularly trolls Trump
.
John Kelly
The chief of staff has clashed repeatedly with the President and
seems
to be on borrowed time
. Kelly sees his time in the job as serving his country in the only way left to him. Might he view
exposing Trump in this way as a last way to be of service?
Kirstjen Nielsen
The head of the Department of Homeland Security is a close ally of Kelly, who we know has a very fraught relationship with
Trump. And she has reasons of her own: Trump scolded her in a Cabinet meeting over the number of undocumented immigrants
entering the country. Nielsen reportedly drafted a resignation letter but backed away.
Jeff Sessions
Sessions sticks out as a possibility for a simple reason:
He's
got motive
. No one has been more publicly maligned by Trump than his attorney general. Trump has repeatedly urged Sessions
to use the Justice Department for his own pet political concerns. And this week, Sessions found out that Trump has referred to
him as "mentally retarded" and mocked his southern accent, according to a new book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.
Sessions is also someone who spent two decades in the Senate prior to being named attorney general by Trump after the 2016
election.
LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING?
James Mattis
The defense secretary has been Trump's favorite Cabinet member. But the quotes attributed to Mattis in Woodward's book are
VERY rough on Trump, though Mattis quickly denied that he ever said them. And if anyone has less to lose than Mattis -- he is
a decorated military man serving his country again -- it's hard to figure out who that would be. Plus, Mattis is an ally of
John Kelly (see above) and Rex Tillerson, the former secretary of state that Trump ran out on a rail.
Fiona Hill
Hill, a Russian expert who joined the Trump administration from the Brookings Institution, a DC think tank, might have reason
to so publicly clash with Trump. She is far more skeptical about Russia's motives than Trump -- and was notably left out when
Trump and Putin huddled on the sides of the G20 meeting in Germany in 2017. She was a close adviser to national security
adviser
H.R.
McMaster, who was removed from the White House
. And, she was also reportedly mistaken for a clerk by Trump in one of her
earliest meetings with him on Russia.
Mike Pence
The vice president is all smiles, nods and quiet, deferential loyalty in public. Which of course means that he has the perfect
cover to write something like this in The New York Times. Pence is also ambitious -- and there's no question he wants to be
president. But would taking such a risk as writing this scathing op-ed be a better path to the White House than just waiting
Trump out?
Pence's deputy chief of staff and communications director Jarrod Agen denied Thursday that Pence or anyone from their office
authored the op-ed.
The Vice President puts his name on his Op-Eds. The
@
nytimes
should be
ashamed and so should the person who wrote the false, illogical, and gutless op-ed. Our office is above
such amateur acts.
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Nikki Haley
The United Nations ambassador is, like Pence, one of Trump's favorites. She is also, however, someone deeply engaged on the
world stage and a voice of concern when it comes to how the President views Russia and Putin. Haley, again like Pence, is
ambitious and has her eye on national office. Would this service that goal?
51 U.S. diplomats who still haven't grasped the negative outcomes of the disastrous wars
launched since 2002, the solution is to bomb the world into America's image. In an internal
dissent cable addressed to Barack Obama, seasoned diplomats have urged airstrikes on the
government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
Chas Freeman, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, told me he
found the cable "unusual" in two respects. First, it garnered a large number of signatures.
Most of those who signed the cable, a State Department official told me, were "rank and file"
diplomats, such as a deputy to U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and a secretary in the
Near East Bureau. They had a good understanding of the current situation in the region. The
second reason this cable is unusual, said Ambassador Freeman, is that the signatories "are
arguing for rather than against the use of force." Over the past 40 years, diplomats have
used the "dissent channel" to caution against a rush to war. Now these diplomats are asking
for an intensification of war.
A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary
Clinton. Could they have leaked this cable to boost Clinton's narrative that she wanted a
more robust attack on Damascus as early as 2012? Is this a campaign advertisement for
Clinton, and a preparation for her likely Middle East policy when she takes power in 2017?
Clinton certainly advocated tougher military action in Syria. She joined CIA chief David
Petraeus to push for a U.S.-backed rebel army in 2012, and she argued for air strikes when
there was no appetite for this in the White House.
It could be the Trump was already deposed as a President by Pompeo.
I never understood appointment of Haley and appointment of Bolton if we assume that Trump is not a neocon and does not want to
continue previous administration policies. Haley is kind of Sikh variant of
Samantha
Power. Bolton is probably as bad as Wolfowitz. Pompeo also can be viewed as Hillary 2.0.
Notable quotes:
"... In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties. ..."
"... The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that conclusion following an initial determination by the British government. ..."
"... However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline. ..."
"... Strangely, a government research facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and the Public Health England. ..."
"... All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the country. ..."
"... It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place. ..."
"... With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect, it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral world order being challenged more than ever. ..."
"... Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise. ..."
Forget about running the Empire or the American state. Trump isn't even in control of his team US President Donald Trump is not in
control of his own administration, as evidenced by the latest round of sanctions imposed against Russia for the alleged involvement
in the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK in March.
The sanctions came the same day that US Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.,
announced
on a trip to Moscow that he had handed over a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin from Trump calling for better relations
between the two countries. For that reason, the timing appears to be suspect, suggesting strongly that Trump has his own foreign
policy while the Trump administration, comprised mainly of bureaucrats referred to as the Deep State, have their own. Right now,
they appear to be in control, not President Trump, over his own administration, and it is having the adverse effect of further alienating
Washington and Moscow.
The neocons, led by National Security Advisor John Bolton, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his United Nations ambassador
Nikki Haley, comprise the Trump " war cabinet " ostensibly aimed at directing a harder line toward Syria, North Korea, Iran
but also Russia. Bolton, in particular, has been outspoken in calling for regime change in some of these countries. Trump not so
much so. In fact, he has said just the opposite. Nevertheless, their anti-Russian flair in Washington has breathed new life into
the neocons who, along with the Democrats, Deep State and much of the mainstream media, have pushed the false narrative of collusion
between Russia and Trump.
This persistent anti-Russian rant and repeated sanctions which have been imposed have had the effect of leading to further threats
of sanctions for questionable reasons, raising the potential prospect of suspension of diplomatic ties.
Even at the height of the Cold War, relations between the US and Russia never reached such low depths as they have now. The latest
sanctions affect primarily dual-use technologies which are civilian products with potential military applications. They include gas
turbine engines, electronics and integrated circuits which will now be denied. Previous sanctions going back to the Obama administration,
however, already imposed bans on many of these dual-use technologies.
In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will
no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be
implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it
destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties.
Implementation of the sanctions stem from provisions of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination
Act of 1991.
The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the
now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that
conclusion following an initial determination by the British government.
However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of
the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a
letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline.
Curiously, the British government hasn't implemented similar sanctions, although the US has. It may reflect the continued uncertainty
among some British politicians and experts over the origin of the Novichok and concern with Britain's trade dependency on Russia.
But since the Americans opted to implement sanctions due to existing legislation, there was apparently no objection from London even
though it initially implemented sanctions by kicking out Russian diplomats from the country.
Moscow, however, vehemently denied that it was involved in the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter. Novichok was created by
Russian scientists during the Cold War but never used on the battlefield. Russian officials asked Britain for evidence of Russian
involvement and called for a joint investigation to be conducted by the Kremlin and British governments.
The British government repeatedly turned down the offer, as did other Western members of the United Nations Security Council,
the US and France, when Moscow sought such a joint investigation.
The US claimed that the information linking the poison to Russia was " classified ."
Strangely, a government research
facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain
of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and
the Public Health England.
Results from the examination confirmed the poison was a form of Novichok but – importantly – could not determine where the poison
had been created or who had used it. This development created further confusion and prompted disputes among politicians.
It is known that samples of Novichok have been in the hands of many
NATO countries for years after
the German foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, or BND, had reportedly obtained a sample from a Russian defector
in the 1990s.
The formula was later shared with Britain, the US, France, Canada and the Netherlands, where small quantities of Novichok reportedly
were produced in an effort to develop countermeasures. Porton Down labs similarly had received samples to study. Czech President
Milos Zeman recently admitted that his country synthesized and tested a form of Novichok. Sweden and Slovakia also have the technical
capability to produce the nerve agent, according to Russian officials.
All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning
of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any
evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the
country.
It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up
to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place.
With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect,
it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse
for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral
world order being challenged more than ever.
The reason, however, isn't due to anything that Moscow initiated but by Trump himself who isn't in control of his own administration,
and maybe never has been. Many of his campaign promises such as dropping out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iranian
nuclear agreement, the threat of sanctions against any company that trades with Iran, his tariff war with US allies are in conflict
with each other, leading to increased world instability. At the same time, Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but
the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise.
F. Michael Maloof is a former Pentagon security analyst.
integer @35. Not a fan of George Soros? Ready to peak into the rabbit hole?
Donald Trump has been business partners with George Soros in at least $6 Billion in
properties for more than a decade before his candidacy. They were even codefendants in a RICO
suit (organized crime, as in the Jewish Mafia).
After spending 17 years at Goldman Sachs, Trump's new Treasure Secretary, Steven Mnuchin ran
OneWest Bank in CA. Guess who he worked for? George frigging Soros.
So, Trump is partners with infamous globalist atheist George Soros, Orthodox Jews, Islamic
Extremists, Goldman Sachs and GHW Bush's Carlyle Group.
And one more morsel to ponder. The CEO of CNN (portrayed as rabidly anti-Trump) is one of a
long list of Globalist Zionists who have been Trump supporters for decades.
"... For Mattis to lament during a speech at a naval college last week that America's moral authority is being eroded by Putin is a symptom of the delusional official thinking infesting Washington. ..."
"... Mattis told his audience: "Putin aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority." He added that the Russian leader's "actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals." ..."
"... It is classic "in denial" ..."
"... "What a powerful delusion Mattis and Western leaders like him are encumbered with," ..."
"... "The US undercuts and compromises its own avowed beliefs and ideals because it has lost any moral integrity that it might have feasibly pretended to have due to decades of its own criminal foreign conduct." ..."
"... "America's so-called moral authority is the free pass it gives itself to topple democracy in Ukraine, replacing it with neo-Nazis; it has turned economically prosperous Libya into a wasteland, after murdering its leader Muammar Gaddafi; it funds and openly sponsors the MKO terror group in Iran for regime change in Tehran; and it is neck deep in fueling the Saudi coalition's genocidal war in Yemen." ..."
"... Despite this litany of criminality committed by the US with the acquiescence of European allies, Washington, says Martin, "preaches a bizarre doctrine of 'exceptionalism' and somehow arrogates a moral right to dominate the world. This is the fruit of the diseased minds of sociopaths." ..."
Jun 20, 2018, RT Op-ed The statements, views and opinions expressed
in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
It's parallel
universe time when US Pentagon chief James 'Mad Dog' Mattis complains that America's "moral
authority" is being undermined by others – specifically Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
This is the ex-Marine general who gained his ruthless reputation from when illegally occupying
US troops razed the
Iraqi city of Fallujah in the 2004-2005 using "shake and bake" bombardment of
inhabitants with banned white phosphorus incendiaries.
A repeat of those war crimes happened again last year under Mattis' watch as Pentagon chief
when US warplanes obliterated the Syrian city of Raqqa, killing thousands of civilians. Even
the pro-US Human Rights Watch
abhorred the repeated use of white phosphorus during that campaign to "liberate"
Raqqa, supposedly from jihadists.
These are but two examples from dense archives of US war crimes committed over several
decades, from its illegal intervention in Syria to Libya, from Iraq to Vietnam, back to the
Korean War in the early 1950s when American carpet bombing killed millions of innocent
civilians.
For Mattis to
lament during a speech at a naval college last week that America's moral authority is being
eroded by Putin is a symptom of the delusional official thinking infesting
Washington.
According to Mattis, the problem of America's diminishing global reputation has
nothing to do with US misconduct – even though the evidence is replete to prove that
systematic misconduct. No, the problem, according to him, is that Russia's Putin is somehow
sneakily undermining Washington's moral authority.
Mattis told his audience: "Putin aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic
model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority." He added that the Russian leader's
"actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise
our belief in our ideals."
The US Secretary of Defense doesn't elaborate on how he thinks Russia is achieving this
dastardly plot to demean America. It is simply asserted as fact. This has been a theme recycled
over and over by officials in Washington and Brussels, other Western government leaders and of
course NATO and its affiliated think-tanks. All of which has been dutifully peddled by Western
news media.
It is classic "in denial" thinking. The general loss of legitimacy and
authority by Western governments is supposedly nothing to do with their own inherent failures
and transgressions, from bankrupt austerity economics, to deteriorating social conditions, to
illegal US-led wars and the repercussions of blowback terrorism and mass migration of refugees.
Oh no. What the ruling elites are trying to do is shift the blame from their own culpability
on to others, principally Russia. American political analyst Randy Martin says that Mattis'
latest remarks show a form of collective delusion among Western political establishments and
their aligned mainstream news media.
"What a powerful delusion Mattis and Western leaders like him are encumbered with,"
says Martin. "The US undercuts and compromises its own avowed beliefs and ideals because it
has lost any moral integrity that it might have feasibly pretended to have due to decades of
its own criminal foreign conduct."
The analyst added: "America's so-called moral authority is the free pass it gives itself
to topple democracy in Ukraine, replacing it with neo-Nazis; it has turned economically
prosperous Libya into a wasteland, after murdering its leader Muammar Gaddafi; it funds and
openly sponsors the MKO terror group in Iran for regime change in Tehran; and it is neck deep
in fueling the Saudi coalition's genocidal war in Yemen."
Despite this litany of criminality committed by the US with the acquiescence of European
allies, Washington, says Martin, "preaches a bizarre doctrine of 'exceptionalism' and somehow
arrogates a moral right to dominate the world. This is the fruit of the diseased minds of
sociopaths."
This week, three headline-making issues speak volumes about America's declining moral
authority.
... ... ...
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with
articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a
Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal
Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including
The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his
columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
"... "the United States has links with terrorist 'Islamic State', also known as Daesh Daesh a tool of US After it [the US] dropped the [mother of all] bomb on Afghanistan, it did not eliminate Daesh the terrorist group has been supplied weapons by the United States forces The US Army helicopters and army bases are being used to provide assistance to ISIS terrorists I do not differentiate at all between Daesh and America Reports of American assistance to the terrorists are coming from all over the country." ..."
"... "Trump's standards, his comments about the Orlando shooting have been reckless and self-serving. They are also dangerous for the country the strongest remaining force that propels the Islamic State is the Islamophobia of Trump and his European counterparts, argue senior intelligence strategists for the U.S.-led coalition. Inflammatory, xenophobic statements about Muslims reinforce the jihadists' claims that they are Muslim knights fighting against an intolerant West. Trump unwittingly gives them precisely the role they dream about." ..."
"... "In NYC, looks like another attack by a very sick and deranged person. Law enforcement is following this closely. We must not allow ISIS to return, or enter, our country after defeating them in the Middle East and elsewhere. Enough! The United States will be immediately implementing much tougher Extreme Vetting Procedures. The safety of our citizens comes first!" ..."
Modern history of terrorism shows that it has gone through distinct
phases, with shifting missions, messages, and means of mobilizing. But, owing to the US President Donald
Trump's Israeli connections, terrorism has entered a dangerous phase.
Everyone knows that Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban were created by the American
CIA to fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
In this regard, former British Foreign secretary, Robin Cook stated, "Throughout
the 1980s, he [Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian
occupation of Afghanistan."
Osama
bin-Laden (Col. Tim Osman) with Ziggy Brzezinski
The then US
National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and said about the militants
(Mujahideen), "We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed because,
you are fighting against the infidel Russians."
However, one of the alarming phases of terrorism started when, after fulfilling
their interests, Washington left Afghanistan in particular and Pakistan in general to face the fallout of a
prolonged conflict -- terrorism and instability.
These Mujahideen who pulled the Russians out of Afghanistan, later become the
Taliban, Al-Qaeda (new version) and the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State group (also known as ISIS, ISIL and
Daesh). They got the label of terrorists.
After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, former US President Bush (41), in
connivance with his Zionist-advisers, saw Islamic fundamentalism as a great threat. Since then, sometimes, Bin
Laden and Al-Qaeda have routinely been used by the US and some Western countries as a scapegoat to malign
Pakistan for 'de-nuclearisation,' as the latter is the only nuclear country in the Muslim World. Sometimes, the
bogeyman of Al-Qaeda was raised to achieve their goals of external policy, and sometimes to pacify their
public, including the opposition. In all cases, the secret underlying purpose was to safeguard the interests of
the Zionists and Israel.
The new frightening phase of terrorism started
after the September 11 tragedy inside the United States. In this regard, US President George W. Bush (43) and
neo-conservatives crossed all the limits in protecting the political, economic and religious interests of the
Jews and Israel at the cost of Muslims and patriot Americans.
Just after the 9/11 catastrophe, statements of Bush, high officials of his
administration and Zionist-controlled media deliberately developed chauvinism and extremism among the
Americans. There had been an organised campaign against the Muslims in the US and other western countries. Its
main themes were that Islam and the Muslims were the true cause of terrorism.
President Bush used the phrase, "crusade against the evil-doers", adding to the
perception that the ongoing 'different war' against terrorism is actually a war against the Muslim countries.
Inside the US, suddenly, every Muslim found himself divested of his nationality. Arrests, detentions and
harassment of the Muslims by the CIA and the FBI in the US were other steps which still continue.
Brushing aside Israeli atrocities on the Palestinians, American unity
was projected with such force as to allow no questioning of US policy.
Under the cover of the 9/11 catastrophe, a pre-planned strategy of the
neo-conservatives headed towards a series of unexpected developments and events. Bush warned the world to
choose sides by saying, "either you are with us or with terrorists." It was due to employment of
pressure-diplomacy on the weak states – Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Libya etc. – that almost all
the Arab states joined Bush's anti-terrorism war. By manipulating public emotion about the 9/11 carnage, Bush
also got the sympathies of almost all the major Western countries including NATO states, which also joined the
fake global war on terror.
Meanwhile, making Osama and Al-Qaeda scapegoats, a number of fake video messages
were telecast on various TV channels and websites by some Zionists to obtain Israel's anti-Muslim goals. For
example, during the November 2004 elections in the US, a fake video helped the incumbent president George W.
Bush to gain a lead over John Kerry.
Can
a leopard change its spots?
It is well-known that, in a tape
released on December 27, 2001, the authenticity of which is not in question, Osama denied any involvement in
the September 11 tragedy.
However, later, two video tapes appeared to validate his guilt in relation to
9/11, because the main aims of the Bush administration were to provoke American public outrage against the
Muslims and to justify a global war on terror -- the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq to possess energy
resources of Central Asia and Iraq, including proxy wars in other Middle Eastern countries and to get their
support for a propaganda campaign against Pakistan and Iran.
Other actions of the Bush era – such as America's state-sponsored terrorism in the
volatile Islamic countries; persecution of Muslims through torture, detentions and arrests; CIA and
FBI-operated facilities; and radicalization of the western Christians against the Muslims – provided a golden
chance for India and Israel to accelerate the systematic genocide of the Palestinians and Kashmiris, and
protected the real architects of the 9/11 tragedy.
While President Barack Obama stated during his first election-campaign that he
would rectify the blunders committed by his predecessor in the name of war on terror, he continued them in
their worst form to secure the illegitimate interests of Israel.
The Obama Administration continued with various techniques of ruthless terror and
extrajudicial killings of innocent persons through illegitimate drone attacks, as in Iraq; and created more
collapsed states such as Libya, Yemen and Syria, thus opening the door for Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
If the double game of President Bush franchised Al-Qaeda at the global level,
President Obama's dual policy franchised both Al-Qaeda and ISIS as part of the anti-Muslim campaign, and left
no stone unturned in advancing the agenda of the Zionists, Israeli lobbies and the neoconservatives in the
pretext of a phony global war on terror.
Secretly, President Obama authorized the CIA to create ISIS. His perennial, covert
support of the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. He was silent about the smuggling of oil by ISIS to
some European countries whose governments have also not taken action against those companies which were
exporting oil from ISIS-controlled regions of Iraq. He was silent about the CIA-assisted Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra
Front), ISIS militants and rebel groups who were fighting to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government
to achieve the aims of a Greater Israel. All of this comprised Obama's double game.
Training and supply of arms by CIA and Israeli
Mossad to these terrorist outfits and medical treatment of their militants in Israeli hospitals, including
arrests of some CIA and Mossad agents in Syria and Iraq have also verified the Western connections. Yet, as
part of the dual strategy, America and its Western partners have also been waging a war against ISIS.
But at the same time, CIA and Mossad openly support this terrorist group and its
linked terror outfits, in accordance with the covert aims of Tel Aviv, not of America.
In this respect, the Russian TV channel, Russia Today (RT) reported on September
24, 2017 "The Russian Ministry of Defense has released aerial images which they say show US Army special
forces' equipment north of the town of Deir er-Zor, where ISIS militants are deployed. US Army special units
provide free passage for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) through the battle formations of Islamic State
(ISIS/ISIL) terrorists Despite that the US strongholds being organized at them
"This could mean that the US military staff feel
absolutely safe in the area which is held by the terrorists All of the images were taken from September 8 to
12. The photos show several Cougar infantry mobility vehicles and Hummer armored vehicles of the US Army
Special Forces, according the Russian MoD data In this case, securing IS assistance for an unopposed advance of
US backed SDF forces could enable the SDF, widely seen as a US proxy, to seize strategically important (and oil
rich) territory in Deir ez-Zor that otherwise would soon be retaken by rapidly advancing Syrian Army. If so
this once again will raise questions as to what the true purpose of US forces-purportedly in Syria to fight
IS-actually is. Earlier in September, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov accused
the SDF of collusion with ISIS terrorists.SDF militants work to the same objectives as IS terrorists."
According to Global Research Canada (Centre for Research on Globalization), "In
other words, ISIS, al-Nusra, and so-called SDF forces are virtually the same thing – US-recruited, -armed,
-funded and -directed cutthroat killers, waging naked aggression against Syria and its people
"The Pentagon's so-called Operation Inherent Resolve so
far is silent on Russia's damning evidence Separately, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem accused
Washington of working with its terrorist assets in Syria, including al-Nusra, to undermine Astana peace
talks Russia's Defense Ministry saying its intelligence revealed US forces together with al-Nusra terrorists
tried halting the successful advance of government forces east of Deir Ezzor Russian airpower smashed their
offensive. Sergey Lavrov condemned the US-led coalition for refusing to combat al-Nusra, calling it absolutely
unacceptable According to Russia's Defense Ministry, nearly 90% of Syrian territory held by ISIS is now
liberated. Moscow will respond appropriately to any US efforts to impede the campaign to free Syria entirely
from control by terrorists."
Intel Agencies' and False Flag Events
In the case of Asia
and particularly South Asia, well-entrenched
in Afghanistan and some Gulf states, intelligence agencies such as CIA, Indian RAW, Mossad and MI6 are
assisting various terror outfits, including Al-Qaeda and particularly ISIL, in order to achieve the covert
goals of the US-led countries against Pakistan, Syria, Iraq China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Somalia, Yemen etc.
and even Afghanistan, which are being destabilized by various forms of terrorism-related assaults, and which
have continued in one way or the other.
In this context, a news item was published by all the leading dailies of Pakistan
on October 8, 2017 regarding the statement of Afghanistan's Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai who, while
dismissing criticism of Russian ties with the Taliban and echoing Russian claims of American support to the
ISIS terrorists, told Voice of America (VOC) that
"the United States has links with terrorist
'Islamic State', also known as Daesh Daesh a tool of US After it [the US] dropped the [mother of all] bomb on
Afghanistan, it did not eliminate Daesh the terrorist group has been supplied weapons by the United States
forces The US Army helicopters and army bases are being used to provide assistance to ISIS terrorists I do not
differentiate at all between Daesh and America Reports of American assistance to the terrorists are coming from
all over the country."
(It also includes Karzai's revelations to VOC of April 20, 2017 and Newsweek's
report of the same day).
In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera's UpFrontaired on November 10, 2017,
Karzai again disclosed that the US government had allowed ISIL to flourish inside Afghanistan. He said, "In my
view under the full presence, surveillance, military, political, intelligence, Daesh [ISIL] has emerged And for
two years the Afghan people came, cried loud about their suffering, of violations. Nothing was done the US
administration of President Donald Trump used ISIL as an excuse to drop a massive bomb on Afghanistan in April
2017 And the next day, Daesh takes the next district in Afghanistan That proves to us that there is a hand in
it and that hand can be no one else but them [the US] in Afghanistan."
In September 2015, the Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the
National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah started breaking the back of the ISIS terrorists,
Al-Qaeda's Al-Nusra Front and the rebels in Syria and Iraq. In response, Israel's Mossad, which already had
clandestine contact with ISIS, directed this outfit to plan the November 13 terror attacks in Paris in
connivance with the French home-grown militants.
Similarly, when Russian-led forces began
retaking many cities from the control of these insurgents, on the other side, agents of Mossad who were in
collaboration with the CIA sympathizers and the ISIL militants arranged various sorts of terror attacks in
Europe and the US.
Through all these false-flag terror operations, the US and Israel wanted to obtain
their covert aims against Russia and the Muslims.
Mossad had also provided US President Donald Trump with an opportunity to
manipulate various terror assaults of Europe and America to win the US presidential election and to reunite
America and Europe, as a rift had been created between America and its Western allies, especially Europe on a
number of issues, including NATO. And, President Trump left no stone unturned in implementing anti-Muslim
policies, while speaking openly against the Muslims and Syrian immigrants.
Trump had started exaggerating the threat of Islamophobia, while some incidents
were not linked to ISIS, but were the result of self-radicalization by individual actors.
Regarding the shooting at the gay night club in Orlando (Florida) which killed at
least 49 individuals on June 12, 2016, The Washington Post in an article, under the caption, "Trump's reckless,
dangerous Islamophobia helps the Islamic State", wrote on June 13, 2016,
"Trump's standards, his comments about the Orlando
shooting have been reckless and self-serving. They are also dangerous for the country the strongest remaining
force that propels the Islamic State is the Islamophobia of Trump and his European counterparts, argue senior
intelligence strategists for the U.S.-led coalition. Inflammatory, xenophobic statements about Muslims
reinforce the jihadists' claims that they are Muslim knights fighting against an intolerant West. Trump
unwittingly gives them precisely the role they dream about."
In this regard, Khaled A. Beydoun opined on the Aljazeera multimedia network on
March 13, 2016,
"The world brand Trump is becoming synonymous with
expansion of racism and incitement of Islamophobia I think Islam hate us, said Donald Trump, 24 hours before
the Republican presidential debate in Miami is a call to his voting base, to further galvanise them around a
disdain for Islam that not only heightens hateful fervour at his rallies, but incites violence on American
blocks and pushes bigots to the ballot box the statement is rooted in the very ignorance and hate which made
him the darling of bigots and surged him up the polls Islamophobia the suspicion and fear of Islam and its 1.7
billion adherent-is political ideology for Trump."
Nevertheless, the incident of shooting at the gay club in Orlando not only exposed
that false flag operation, but also endorsed other false flag terror-attacks in the US and Europe. In this
connection, in an interview with Brazilian TV on June 14, 2016, the ex-wife of the Orlando shooter Omar Mateen
Sitora Yusufiy revealed that American FBI pressured her to keep quiet about his homosexuality.
While Mateen had been dubbed as an Islamic terrorist by the American politicians,
senior officials and commentators following reports that he had pledged allegiance to the ISIS, the FBI wanted
to downplay the personal and self-hating nature of the assault.
President Obama stated on June 12, 2016, "Federal authorities had made no
definitive judgment on the killer's motivation, and whether he was inspired by or directed by Islamic State or
other terrorist groups."
Obama clarified by explaining "Orlando shooting was the result of Mateen's
personal resentment in relation to the gay club."
Similarly, the teenager Ali David Sonboly who
killed 9 people in Munich had no connection with the ISIS. Police investigation revealed that he was "a
mentally troubled person" and police also discovered extremist material, linked to the attack by Andres Behring
Brevik, the white supremacist who murdered 77 persons in Norway in 2011.
Likewise, the shooting in the French city of Nice was also a false flag
terror-act, as CIA-Mossad arranged it with the help of ISIS, which used homegrown terrorists of France.
At least eight people were killed on October 31, 2017 when the driver of a pickup
truck hit people on a cycle path in Lower Manhattan, New York City near the World Trade Centre. The vehicle
then hit a school bus, injuring two adults and two children on board.
According to the US media reports,
"American investigators found ISIS-related images and
videos on Saipov's cellphone handwritten notes in Arabic near the truck that indicated allegiance to the
Islamic State But investigators had not uncovered evidence of any direct or enabling ties between Mr. Saipov
and ISIS and were treating the episode as a case of an "inspired" attacker Police records show he was arrested
in Missouri last year over a traffic fine. Almost immediately, as investigators began to look into Mr. Saipov's
history, it became clear that he had been on the radar of federal authorities. Three officials said he had come
to the federal authorities' attention as a result of an unrelated investigation."
However various conflicting reports show that, as with previous terror attacks in
the US and Europe, the New York terror attack was likely a false flag operation conducted by Mossad in
connivance with some CIA operatives and the ISIS terrorists. It might also be an individual act of Saipov, who
had been inspired by the extremist agenda of ISIS.
Even then, responsibility goes to the agents of these intelligence agencies, who
have already been radicalizing the Muslims and Christians by dividing them on religious lines, in order to
fulfill the Zionist agenda of Israel. Contradictory and anti-Muslim statements of the pro-Israeli, Donald
Trump, about the terror assaults have further verified collaboration of agencies.
Tweeting his immediate reaction, President Trump said,
"In NYC, looks like another attack by a very sick
and deranged person. Law enforcement is following this closely. We must not allow ISIS to return, or enter, our
country after defeating them in the Middle East and elsewhere. Enough! The United States will be immediately
implementing much tougher Extreme Vetting Procedures. The safety of our citizens comes first!"
He did not
elaborate further.
Regarding the New York terror attack of November 2, 2017, President Trump again
tweeted about immigration, calling for an end to "chain migration lets people bring their whole family with
them, who can be truly evil."
President Trump first introduced the screening process during the election
campaign on a pledge to indefinitely ban the Muslims from entering the United States -- his campaign aides later
tried to finesse as a broader policy aimed at implementing "extreme vetting" for immigrants from certain
countries. As president, he introduced a ban on arrivals to the US from a number of mainly-Muslim countries.
While America's Western partners, especially
European countries had strongly condemned Trump's travel ban on the Muslim countries as discriminatory and
violations of human rights, in a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union – a civil rights group – said
that the term "extreme vetting" was a "euphemism for discriminating against Muslims."
It is noteworthy that 59 people were killed and more than 500 others injured on
October 1, last year, when a gunman-an American national, Stephen Paddock opened fire on concertgoers from the
Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada. Next day , through its Amaq propaganda agency,
ISIL, claimed responsibility for the incident, disclosing that, "the Las Vegas attacker is a soldier of the
Islamic State in response to calls to target coalition countries -- converted to Islam several months ago" -- but
provided no evidence to support the assertion." Senior US homeland security officials said that there was no
evidence Paddock had links to international or domestic terror groups or ISIS.
On social media, many individuals had pointed out that if Paddock had been a
Muslim, if he had shouted "Allahu akbar" before he opened fire on all those concertgoers in Las Vegas, the term
"terrorist" would have been used almost immediately to describe him, as a link to Islamist terrorism would be
assumed even without evidence.
To what extent President Trump wants to obtain Israeli illegitimate goals at the
cost of Muslims and the patriot Americans could be judged from the terrorism-related assaults which occurred in
the Spanish city of Barcelona on August 17, 2017 and in her town of Cambrils on August 18, 2017. After
condemning the terror attacks and offering US assistance to Spain, the US President Trump suggested "fighting
terrorism by executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood."
India's Anti-Muslim and Anti-Pakistan
Agenda
It also deserves particular attention
that since the
fundamentalist party BJP led by the Indian Prime Minister Narindra Modi came to power in India, it has been
implementing anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan agenda. Encouraged by the BJP, assaults on Muslims, Christians and
other minorities by the Hindu extremist parties might be cited as instance. India which has strategic
partnership with Israel has perennially been manipulating the double game of the US-led West regarding world
phenomena of terrorism in connection with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In wake of Modi's aggressive diplomacy, India has continued shelling in Pakistani
side of Kashmir which remains a nuclear flashpoint between both the neighbouring countries.
Emboldened by the President Trump, both Tel Aviv and New Delhi have been equating
the 'wars of liberation' in Palestine and Kashmir with terrorism. Their main purpose is to divert the attention
of the West from their own state terrorism, while employing delaying tactics in the solution of these issues.
Israel Criticizes the UN and Obama
It is worth-mentioning
that Obama's anti-Muslim policies were
clearly exposed. Therefore, before the end of his tenure, President Obama wanted to rectify his blunders. In
this context, on December 23, 2016, the US abstained and allowed a UN Security Council resolution condemning
Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territories of the Palestinians to be adopted, defying
extraordinary pressure from Israeli PM Netanyahu's government, which was in alliance with the US
President-elect Donald Trump.
In a statement, Netanyahu's office accused the
Obama administration of "colluding" with the UN and said it looked forward to working with Trump, as well as
Israel-friendly members of Congress, "to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution."
Netanyahu called the resolution "shameful" and said Israel would not abide by its
terms and continue the construction of the settlements.
In this connection, in a series of tweets, posted on December 28, 2016, Donald
Trump harshly criticized the Obama's policies on the settlement issue and reiterated his support for Israel. He
questioned the effectiveness of the UNO, saying, "it's just a club for people to have a good time."
US' Jerusalem Embassy and Palestinian
Massacre
Despite criticism, Trump Administration announced the opening of the US Embassy in
Jerusalem on May 14, this year.
The same day witnessed a ceremony attended by Netanyahu and the administration of
President Trump who buried the peace process and the two-state solution, killing any hope in the minds of the
people of the Middle East as a whole with the possibility of peace in the region.
On the same day, Israeli security forces shot and killed at least 58 Palestinians
and wounded more than 2700 during mass protests along the Gaza border.
Donald Trump tweeted, "A great day for Israel", as he delivered on his promise to
move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Trump
who had already vowed to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and had nominated
an ambassador in David Friedman who was supportive of settlers by pledging that the Palestinians would no
longer have a platform at the UN when he becomes president on January 20, had said, last year, "We cannot
continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in
the U.S the beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.) Stay strong Israel, January
20th is fast approaching."
Besides, Trump's strong backing of the NATO-like alliance by the Saudi Arabia -- the
Sunni-countries against Iran and accusing Tehran of promoting terrorism and motivating religious extremism
among the Muslims and Christians, Jews and Hindus show his clear links with Tel Aviv.
Nonetheless, President Trump's Israeli connections were undoubtedly proved on May
14, this year, when he implemented his decision of December 6, 2018 by officially recognizing Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel, and reversed nearly seven decades of American foreign policy and set in motion a plan to
move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to the fiercely contested Holy City.
In this regard, Trump had stated, last year, "Today we finally acknowledge the
obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel's capital This is nothing more or less than recognition of reality. It is
also the right thing to do. It's something that has to be done."
America's Western allies who had disavowed Trump's move, which reversed decades of
US neutrality on the status of Jerusalem have again denounced Trump's move.
Over the US Embassy move, perennial killings of the Palestinians, strong reaction
was seen in the Islamic World in particular and the Western World in general.
The European Union's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, called on Israel to
respect the principle of proportionality in the use of force and show restraint, UN Secretary-General Antonio
Guterres issued a similar appeal.
President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Mahmoud Abbas, furious
over the embassy ceremony, stated that he would not accept any peace deal proposed by the Trump administration.
He also urged the international community to condemn the massacres carried out by Israeli troops in Gaza, and
officials of the PLO said that the Palestinians would file a war crimes complaint against Israel in the
International Criminal Court over settlement construction.
Egypt, a key Israeli ally, condemned the killings of Palestinian protesters, while
the UN human rights chief, Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, decried the shocking killing of dozens.
Turkey recalled its ambassador to the United States, saying it "disregarded the
legitimate rights of the Palestinian people" and would "not serve peace, security and stability in the region."
It also recalled its ambassador to Israel after a massacre of Palestinians on the Gaza border. South Africa, a
fervent supporter of the Palestinians, also recalled its ambassador for consultations.
Muslim leaders called on May 18, 2018 for an international force to be deployed to
protect Palestinians after hundreds of protesters were shot dead by Israeli forces on the Gaza border.
At a special summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) held in
Istanbul on May 18, this year, following the call of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to address the
Israeli-Palestinian crisis in Gaz. The OIC has condemned the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem as
part of the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Israeli state, and decried the deaths of more than 60
Palestinians. Earlier, Erdoğan stated that Israel will never be permitted to "steal" Jerusalem.
The OIC leaders also pledged to take appropriate political and economic measures
against countries that followed the United States in moving their Israel embassies to contested Jerusalem from
Tel Aviv. It said that the violence should be put on the agenda of the U.N. Security Council and General
Assembly, and called on the United Nations to investigate the killings.
The summit was also attended by Jordan's King Abdullah, a US close ally whose
Hashemite dynasty is custodian of Muslim sites in Jerusalem. Abdullah stated: "The U.S. decision five months
ago to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital had weakened the pillars of peace and deepened the despair that
leads to violence."
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani called on Muslim countries "to totally cut their
relations with the Zionist regime [Israel] and also to revise their trade and economic ties with America".
Trump's Israeli connections could also be judged from the unrealistic statement of
Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UNO, who told an emergency meeting of the Security Council that Israel
had acted with restraint. She dismissed suggestions that the violence was related to the opening of the US
Embassy in Jerusalem.
In condemnation of Trump's unilateral step to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem, besides protests and rallies which were held in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza,
thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters held demonstrations in other Islamic countries such as Iran, Turkey,
Pakistan etc. where the protesters burnt American and Israeli flags. Even in Jordan, protesters near the
heavily-defended US Embassy in Amman chanted: "America is the head of the snake. No U.S. Embassy on Jordanian
soil."
Hamas leader Ismail Haniya have stated the US decision on recognising Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel and transfer of the American Embassy to Jerusalem are a war declaration against
Palestinians.
At present, savage crimes committed by the US-backed Israeli forces against the
Palestinians continue unabated.
Undoubtedly, angry elements within the Islamic countries, especially the pro-Arab
states may react against America and its interests in the form of terrorism and other violent actions.
Unquestionably, the US president's move on Jerusalem will create new risks for all of Washington's allies in
the Middle East, as the decision will offer extremist groups a valuable opportunity to capitalise on anti-US
sentiment and direct such anger towards regimes which are close to the US and non-confrontational towards
Israel.
Notably, Akayed Ullah, a 27-year-old Bangladeshi immigrant with a pipe bomb
strapped to his body set off an explosion at one of New York's busiest commuter hubs on December 11, 2017,
leaving five people injured. According to the US media, the suspect told investigators that he detonated a
crude bomb after he spotted a holiday display and did it in the name of ISIS to avenge the deaths of Muslims
around the world, law enforcement officials said. The concerned American officials stated that there is no
evidence that Ullah, an electrician, had any direct contact with the ISIS. But, he said "his anger over U.S.
bombings in ISIS-controlled territory and recent Israeli actions in Gaza
,
fueled his desire to carry out
a suicide bombing."
Now, we can witness that
terrorism-related attacks in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, Europe, America and elsewhere in the world
have, rapidly, been increasing.
Mossad is playing a key role in terror assaults, as Israel will prefer a nuclear
war between Russia and the US-led West to avoid the two-state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Atomic war could also erupt between Pakistan and India, as New Delhi also avoids solution of the Kashmir issue.
While fanatic leaders are in power in the US, India and Israel, their connivance may culminate into 'clash of
civilizations', particularly between the Muslim and the Christians worlds.
We can conclude that terrorism has entered the dangerous phase and Trump's Israeli
connections have undoubtedly been proved.
It is the right hour that loyalist Americans, non-Zionist Jews and peace-loving
citizens of every other religious community should play their positive role for global peace by stopping the
division of the international community on religious and cultural lines.
Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs
Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations
Some of you do not understand the degree of compartmentation in government. It is nothing
like a monolith. The WHs are largely funded by USAID which is part of State Department, and
administered by the UK. There is no particular reason why Mattis would know much about it. It
is possible that Trump doesn't know much about it.
If Mattis didn't know about it, then he should have done and likewise with Trump.
Ignorance of the hard facts by either of these men is scarcely believable and even if true
would be totally inexcuseable.
"Lange didn't support the strike but he saw it as the best of a lot of bad options."
Better than the option of allowing a real investigation?
At the crucial moment, Lang published the following on his website. More than likely it
was seen by Mattis:
An appeal to James Mattis
I beseech you, sir, to consider the possibility that the supposed chlorine gas attack at
Douma, Syria may have been a carefully constructed propaganda fraud on the part of the
rebels encircled in Douma. Such a fraud would have as its purpose the elicitation of
exactly the kind of response that we are seeing in the Western media. The rebels have been
defeated in East Gouta Their fighters and families are being evacuated to Turkish occupied
Jarabulus by air-conditioned bus. How would it benefit the Syrian government to make such
an attack in this situation?
I hope that you will determine the exact facts of what occurred at Douma before any
action is taken.
I recommend that you send someone competent to Syria to make an on the ground
investigation.
If Mattis didn't know about it, then he should have done and likewise with Trump.
Ignorance of the hard facts by either of these men is scarcely believable and even if true
would be totally inexcuseable.
It were wise to consider that Mattis' access to information might be being impeded –
actively and/or passively – by the NeoCon bitter enders installed during the previous
administrations, people who believe that it is their job to do so. (We have been seeing this
very thing from the bitter enders at the FBI and the "Justice" departments in their plotting
against the new administration, yes? So you have an example of that right in front of your
eyes.)
With that understanding, and given Col. Lang's likely experience of this sort of
obstruction by hostile underlings, his appeal to Mattis might be seen as an admonition to dig
a little deeper, & to press his underlings about their truthfulness. So, Mattis could
indeed be misinformed, and precisely because of the compartmentalization that you accede.
Hence the letter going hand in hand with his worries about active and/or passive obstruction
in access to vital information, or the existence of contrary intelligence and
interpretation.
It is much better to view this issue in ideological terms as neocons and neoliberalas and
remnant of paleoconservatives and News Dealers.
Notable quotes:
"... Jews are a powerful voice but they are, by and large, not in the decision-making seat. Why do you absolve Trump, Haley, Pence, Bolton, etc.? Maybe they are "brainwashed" by the Jews? Well maybe the Jews are "brainwashed" too? ..."
Today, America's Big Jews and Little Jews bear responsibility for this sad situation
– end of story.
That is simply ignorant and racist. Most of the Senate is not Jews, the President is not a
Jew, the Secretary of Defense is not a Jew, and the vast majority of general aren't Jews. Yet
they are all going along with this "bomb Syria" thing, with a few exceptions – one of
them being Bernie Sanders, a Jew.
Jews are a powerful voice but they are, by and large, not in the decision-making seat.
Why do you absolve Trump, Haley, Pence, Bolton, etc.? Maybe they are "brainwashed" by the
Jews? Well maybe the Jews are "brainwashed" too?
I don't see how you get to selectively blame one group and absolve others except via
ignorant, counterproductive and stupid racism.
By the way, Jerry Brown is a huge advocate of open borders and a primary contributor to
it. Is he a Jew too?
It's fair and honorable to point out the Jewish role in these affairs, but it is just as
unfair and dishonorable to not only ignore, but try to bury, the non-Jewish role in these
affairs.
I agree with "think peace" – but the non-Jews Trump, Pence, Ryan, Haley, Pompeo,
etc. are anything but peaceful. I don't see any Jewish guns to their head, so they are 100%
responsible for their own actions. Why do you excuse them? Hmmm?
The Russian government called the expulsions "a provocative gesture" and said it would
retaliate in kind, raising the prospect of further tit-for-tat expulsions, as the US and Europe
left the door open for additional measures. The Kremlin said Vladimir Putin would make the
final decision, and the Russian embassy in the US launched a poll on Twitter asking which US
consulate in Russia should be closed.
The US has ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian officials who Washington says are spies,
including a dozen based at the United Nations, and told Moscow to shut down its consulate in
Seattle, which would end Russian diplomatic representation on the west coast.
The EU members Germany, France and Poland are each to expel four Russian diplomats with
intelligence agency backgrounds. Lithuania and the Czech Republic said they would expel three,
and Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands two each. Estonia, Latvia, Croatia, Finland, Hungary,
Sweden and Romania each expelled one Russian. Iceland announced it would not be sending
officials to the World Cup in Russia .
Ukraine, which is not an EU member, is to expel 13 Russian diplomats, while Albania, an EU
candidate member, ordered the departure of two Russians from the embassy in Tirana. Macedonia,
another EU candidate, expelled one Russian official.
Canada announced it was expelling four diplomatic staff serving in Ottawa and Montreal who
the Canadian government said were spies. A pending application from Moscow for three more
diplomatic posts in Canada is being denied.
Raj Shah, a White House spokesperson, told reporters Monday that the US expulsions were part
of "a coordinated effort".
He added that Donald Trump "spoke with many foreign leaders, European allies and others and
encouraged them to join with the United States in this announcement".
Basically McMaster started clearing out the Israel Zios in the department ...including
several who violate security rules on top secret info. The report list person after person
McMaster canned and the ZOA is furious all their inside boys were turned out.
Very cleverly the report is presented to Trump as McMaster firing all the 'Pro Trumpers"
because McMasters is ''anti Trump''.
So the ZOA are now Trump Loyalist..lol...just pledge your loyalty to Trump and he'll
follow you like a puppy.
I am beginning to wonder though if there is a small but growing number of upper rank
military that are trying to weed out the bomb Iran Zionist.
"... The Iranian regime, in my mind, is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East...For all the talk of ISIS and Al Qaida everywhere right now they're a very serious threat. But nothing is as serious in the long term enduring ramifications, in terms of stability and prosperity and some hope for a better future for the young people out there, than Iran. ..."
"... We know that vacuums left in the Middle East seem to be filled by either terrorists or by Iran or their surrogates or Russia In order to restore deterrence, we have to show capability, capacity and resolve. ..."
"... Using our special neocon-speak translator, we see that "capability, capacity and resolve" actually means "weapons, deployments, and wars." No wonder Kristol and company are touting this man as their savior. ..."
The neocons have been in a panic this election season. One by
one, their preferred choice for the Republican presidential nomination has been soundly
rejected by the uncooperative American voting public. Sen. Lindsey Graham made a run for the
nomination saying , "If
you're tired of war, don't vote for me," and nobody did. Perhaps the idea of perpetual war to
the very last US dollar is beginning to wear thin among Republican voters.
Though the two Republicans left standing, Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, have endorsed
sending thousands of troops into the Middle East and even turning the sand into glass with a
nuclear weapon, they are viewed as not reliably neoconservative enough for the Beltway
bombardiers. William Kristol, absolutely forlorn over the American voter's rejection of the
reliable Republican neocons in the race, has thrown his hat in with a very reliable Democrat
neocon, Hillary Clinton. "I would rather see Hillary than Trump,"
said Kristol.
But such a move comes not without risk for the Kristol-ites. The neocons migrated from the
Democratic Party to the Republican Party like a virus to a new host and one promising candidate
does not a happy return necessarily make.
What to do?
Again from Kristol: "We'll have to start a new party if it's Trump." And that's what
they're doing. With the help of the compliant media, of course.
Thanks to Target Liberty for its diligence in "Mad Dog"
spotting , we see the (former) house organ of the CIA, Time Magazine, joining the neocon
cheering section behind the notion of a third party run by retired Major General James "Mad
Dog" Mattis, former Commander of the US Central Command.
What is it about military leaders that has led so many voters to champion them for the
Presidency? After all, it's not like the nation has emerged victorious from its recent wars.
... Retired Marine general James "Mad Dog" Mattis, who hung up his uniform three years ago,
has fervent supporters who want him to run for President.
The very title of the article is a fraud. Who are these "Americans" who are
clamoring for a General to become president? Neocons! What percentage to neocons make up of the
US electorate? Re-read the first paragraph for an indication.
Why are the neocons panting like a dog in heat for "Mad Dog" Mattis? His speech today at the
military-industrial complex funded
Center for Strategic and International Studies tells the tale of the tape. What gets the Mad
Dog all hot and bothered? War with Iran!
The Iranian regime, in my mind, is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace
in the Middle East...For all the talk of ISIS and Al Qaida everywhere right now they're a
very serious threat. But nothing is as serious in the long term enduring ramifications, in
terms of stability and prosperity and some hope for a better future for the young people out
there, than Iran.
And, in what must be music to the ears of all those inside the Beltway who have
become rich robbing the rest of us to pay for their wars, Mattis spells out his foreign policy.
In a word: War!
We know that vacuums left in the Middle East seem to be filled by either terrorists or by
Iran or their surrogates or Russia In order to restore deterrence, we have to show
capability, capacity and resolve.
Using our special neocon-speak translator, we see that "capability, capacity
and resolve" actually means "weapons, deployments, and wars." No wonder Kristol and company are
touting this man as their savior.
General George Washington was a reluctant political leader. He accepted the office of
president only at the insistence of others. His preference after the battle was won was to hang
up his guns and retire to hemp-growing and whiskey-distilling. In these days of
increasingly political military officers , it seems the notion of civilian control of the
military is, like the Constitution itself, just another anachronism.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we give you President Mattis:
The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there
are some a**holes in the world that just need to be shot.
( Business
Insider )
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my
eyes: If you f*ck with me, I'll kill you all.
( San Diego Union
Tribune )
Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every
one of them until they're so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms
intact.
( San Diego Union
Tribune )
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
( San Diego Union
Tribune )
You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they
didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a
hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a
hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like
brawling.
( CNN )
I'm going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will
write about what we do here for 10,000 years.
( San Diego Union
Tribune )
"... President Trump congratulated Vladimir Putin to his reelection as president of the Russian Federation. It was a matter of simply courtesy to do so. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (aka the National Security Advisor), three star general McMaster, had advised him to not congratulate Putin. (McMaster now claims differently .) That was bad advice. But it became even worse when McMaster, or someone in his shop, promptly leaked this to the press. The usual Republican nutters like John McCain grumbled and Trump was furious. ..."
President Trump congratulated
Vladimir Putin to his reelection as president of the Russian Federation. It was a matter of
simply courtesy to do so. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (aka the
National Security Advisor), three star general McMaster, had advised him to not congratulate
Putin. (McMaster now
claims differently .) That was bad advice. But it became even worse when McMaster, or
someone in his shop, promptly leaked this to the press. The usual Republican nutters like John
McCain grumbled and Trump was furious.
Trump decided to fire McMaster the very next day. He had it coming. Both the White House
Chief of Staff Kelly as well as the Secretary of Defense Mattis wanted McMaster out.
Unfortunately for them Trump chose a replacement that they did not want and will find difficult
to live with.
Let's get over the McMaster ouster. The fact is that he was completely unqualified to be the
National Security advisor. McMaster was uneducated in history and international politics.
McMaster (1) was excellent as an army unit leader and (2) obtained a PhD with a thesis that
claimed that the US lost in Vietnam because generals weren't listened to, which is complete
BS.
Now we may not like Bolton, but at least he's qualified. Does the NSA have the authority to
start a war? No. The simple fact is that in the most likely war scenarios, Korea and Iran,
the US has bases, ships etc. within easy reach of prospective enemies. Forward basing, it's
called. The Pentagon knows this very well. They hate it when bases are destroyed and ships
are sunk.
Currently the US is crowing about an evacuation exercise in Korea -- with a hundred people,
when there are tens of thousands of Americans in South Korea endangered by any war.
So let's cheer up.
As I understand it, Mc Master's thesis was worse than 'generals weren't listened to", it
was that Generals knew what it would take to win but were reluctant to press their case.
I think McMaster's view gets watered-down and sugar-coated into: "Generals should provide
true info to civilian authority" when it seems to me that the message he conveys to Generals
is simply this: be stubborn; insist on full and unconditional support of civilian authority
for any military action. We see this attitude reflected in "The Powell Doctrine" and now
Trump's hand's-off approach to the military.
I see this as civilian authority (the President) essentially handing the keys to the
Generals once any military action is authorized.
@jr 49
Vietnam, a US attempt at nation-building within a nation (stupid), was a lost cause to begin
with and so what generals "knew" was irrelevant.
Harry Truman got it right.
A couple of President Harry Truman quotes: "It's the fellows who go to West Point and are
trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him
[General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not
against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."
Now currently generals aren't any smarter, they are still dumb SOBs who rise up by sucking
up, but at least they are smart enough to realize that forward basing dooms any offensive
attacks against countries that have the capability to counter-attack against US bases and
ships. That would be North Korea and Iran, for starters. Bolton's ascendance won't change
that simple truth, so the sky isn't falling.
Yes, agreed, let's please cheer up. We live in a age of miracles, when Russia and China
see fit to ally, and preserve, or create, world stability.
Trump has always been surrounded by completely vile people, and none of this has stopped
Russia from laying down the gauntlet. Bolton is as much a nothing, I suggest, as Boris
Johnson across the ocean. Neither of them holds power. The west doesn't hold power any
longer. It's been checkmated at every turn - by Russia militarily and China economically.
Power is the ability to force things to your will, and it's backed up by a gun or it fails
in the end. Trump's button may be big but it's old and maybe rusted and the odds are good it
doesn't even work very well, especially against next generation jamming and hypersonic
speeds.
So the west can bluster and parade its theater all it wants, it means nothing as the
caravans all move on into the future. And even the theater is getting found out in advance
now, with chemical-weapon caches and plans rendered visible before they can act.
As for the bluster, it only works on domestic populations, who have no power and thus
cannot affect reality, and whose governments have no power and thus cannot use a mandate to
war even if given one by their populations, gulled by propaganda. It's a useless, circular
mechanism whose paradigm has ended, is defunct.
I find it encouraging beyond words to watch the real power on the ground in this Eurasian
Century, as the west declines. And I'll quote just one last time, because I love the potency
of this equation: "Power. The one quality of the human condition that you can't fake."
MUNICH -- Just hours after the Justice Department indicted 13 Russians in what it charged
was a broad conspiracy to alter the 2016 election, President Trump's national security adviser,
Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, accused Moscow of engaging in a campaign of "disinformation,
subversion and espionage" that he said Washington would continue to expose.
The evidence of a Russian effort to interfere in the election "is now incontrovertible,"
General McMaster said at the Munich Security Conference, an annual meeting of European and
American diplomats and security experts, including several senior Russian officials. On Friday,
just hours before the indictment, the top White House official for cyberissues accused Russia
of "the most destructive cyberattack in human history," against Ukraine last summer.
Taken together, the statements appeared to mark a major turn in the administration's
willingness to directly confront the government of President Vladimir V. Putin. Defense
Secretary Jim Mattis and C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo also attended the Munich conference, and
while they did not speak publicly, in private meetings with others here they reiterated similar
statements.
The comments highlighted a sharp division inside the administration about how to talk about
the Russian covert efforts, with only Mr. Trump and a few of his close advisers holding back
from acknowledging the Russian role or talking about a larger strategy to deter future
attacks.
The indictment characterized the cyberattacks and social media fraud as part of a larger
effort by Russia to undermine the United States. A senior administration official called the
effort to confront Russia "a significant point of contention" within the administration.
After the indictment on Friday Mr. Trump declared in a Twitter post that "the results of the
election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong -- no collusion!" He made no
mention of Russia as a "revisionist power," the description used in his own National Security
Strategy, or of the elaborate $1.2 million-a-month effort that the indictment indicated
Russia's Internet Research Agency spent in an effort to discredit the election system and
ultimately to support his candidacy.
Vice President Mike Pence, speaking this past week in Washington, misstated American
intelligence conclusions about the election hacking, arguing "it is the universal conclusion of
our intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any effect on the outcome of the
2016 election." The intelligence chiefs have said they have not, and cannot, reach such a
conclusion.
Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, cited Mr. Pence's comments during the
session here Saturday to make the case that Russia did nothing wrong. "So until we see the
facts, everything else is just blabber," he said.
The man who served as the Russian ambassador to the United States during the period covered
by the indictments, Sergey I. Kislyak, picked up on a favorite theme of Mr. Trump's:
questioning the credibility of the F.B.I. and intelligence agency assessments.
"I have seen so many indictments and accusations against Russians," Mr. Kislyak said on
Saturday afternoon. "I am not sure I can trust American law enforcement to be the most truthful
source against Russians." He added, "The allegations being mounted against us are simply
fantasies."
Mr. Kislyak, who has been caught up in the investigation because of meetings with Trump
campaign officials during his time as ambassador, went on to cite a study, which he said he was
keeping in his briefcase, that proved the "main source of computer attacks in the world is not
Russia. It is the United States."
The Secretary of Defense has
written to Congressional leaders to express his opposition to S.J.Res. 54, the resolution
that would end U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen:
In a letter sent to congressional leaders Wednesday and obtained by The Washington Post,
Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the
Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our
partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would
further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis."
He urged Congress not to impose restrictions on the "noncombat," "limited U.S. military
support" being provided to Saudi Arabia, which is "engaging in operations in its legitimate
exercise of self-defense."
The Pentagon has been putting forward very weak legal
arguments against S.J.Res. 54, and Mattis'
statement of the policy arguments against the resolution are not any better. The Saudi-led
coalition would have great difficulty continuing their war without U.S. military assistance.
U.S. refueling allows coalition planes to carry out more attacks than they otherwise could, so
it is extremely unlikely that ending it could possibly result in more civilian casualties than
the bombing campaign causes now. Mattis is taking for granted that U.S. military assistance
somehow makes coalition bombing more accurate and less likely to result in civilian casualties,
but that is hard to credit when coalition forces routinely target civilian structures on
purpose and when the military
admits that it doesn't keep track of what happens after it refuels coalition planes.
Secretary Mattis says that cutting off support could jeopardize cooperation on
counter-terrorism, but the flip side of this is that continuing to enable the Saudi-led war
creates the conditions for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the local ISIS affiliate to
flourish. The coalition's war has made AQAP stronger than it was before, and AQAP members have
sometimes even fought alongside coalition forces on the ground. Instead of worrying about
whether the U.S. is jeopardizing cooperation with these states, we should be asking whether
that cooperation is worth very much in Yemen.
He claims that the Saudis and their allies are engaged in "a legitimate exercise of
self-defense," and this is simply not true. The Saudis and their allies were not attacked and
were not threatened with attack prior to their intervention. Saudi territory now comes under
attack because the coalition has been bombing Yemen for years, but that doesn't make continuing
the war self-defense. If an aggressor launches an attack against a neighboring country, it is
the neighbor that is engaged in self-defense against the state(s) attacking them.
Mattis also warns that ending support for the Saudi-led coalition would have other
undesirable consequences:
As Mattis put it in his letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, "withdrawing U.S.
support would embolden Iran to increase its support to the Houthis, enabling further
ballistic missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and threatening vital shipping lanes in the Red
Sea, thereby raising the risk of a regional conflict."
These claims also don't hold water. Iranian support for the Houthis remains limited, but it
has increased as a direct result of the war. The longer that the war goes on, the greater the
incentive the Houthis and Iran will have to cooperate. The absurdity of this intervention is
that it was dishonestly sold as a war against Iranian "expansionism" and yet it has done more
to aid Iran than anything Iran's government could have done on its own. Missile strikes on
Saudi Arabia wouldn't be happening if the Saudis and their allies weren't regularly bombing
Yemeni cities. If the coalition halted its bombing, the missile strikes would almost certainly
cease as well. Continuing the war is a guarantee that those attacks will continue, and U.S.
military assistance ensures that the war will continue. Every reason Mattis gives here for
continuing U.S. support for the war is actually a reason to end it.
Shipping lanes weren't threatened before the intervention and won't be threatened after it
ends. Yemenis have every incentive to leave shipping lanes alone, since these are their
country's lifeline. Meanwhile, the cruel coalition blockade is slowly starving millions of
Yemenis to death by keeping out essential commercial goods from the main ports that serve the
vast majority of the population. Mattis is warning about potential threats to shipping from
Yemen while completely ignoring that the main cause of the humanitarian disaster is the
interruption of commercial shipping into Yemen by the Saudi-led blockade. The regional conflict
that Mattis warns about is already here. It is called the Saudi-led war on Yemen. If one wants
to prevent the region from being destabilized further, one would want to put an end to that war
as quickly as possible.
Mattis mentions that the U.S. role in the war is a "noncombat" and "limited" one, but for
the purposes of the debate on Sanders-Lee resolution that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that
the military assistance the U.S. is providing doesn't put Americans in combat. That is not the
only way that U.S. forces can be introduced into hostilities. According to the War Powers Resolution
, the U.S. has introduced its armed forces into hostilities under these circumstances:
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed
Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate,
participate in the movement of, or accompany [bold mine-DL] the regular or irregular military
forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there
exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
Any fair reading of this definition has to apply to the regular U.S. refueling of coalition
planes that are engaged in an ongoing bombing campaign. The U.S. is obviously participating in
the "movement" of coalition forces when it provides their planes with fuel. Indeed, our forces
are making the movement of their forces possible through refueling. U.S. involvement in the war
on Yemen clearly counts as introducing U.S. forces into hostilities under the WPR, and neither
administration has sought or received authorization to do this. No president is permitted to do
this unless there is "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or
its armed forces." There has obviously been no action from Congress that authorizes this, and
there is certainly no emergency or attack that justifies it. U.S. involvement in the war on
Yemen is illegal, and the Senate should pass S.J.Res. 54 to end it.
"Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the
Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our
partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would
further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis.""
Wow. So MBS is blackmailing us. He's threatening to kill more civilians, to stop
anti-terror cooperation, and to shut us out of other Saudi regional security decisions if we
don't help him starve and wreck Yemen.
Maybe the situation is a little clearer, but how can anyone take Trump seriously after
this embarrassing confession by Mattis?
We may assume that Trump has no self-respect, but doesn't he have any respect for his
office? Is he really going to let this disgusting little torture freak jerk him around like
this? When it implicates all Americans in Saudi war crimes?
Re: "Mattis' Weak Case for Supporting the War on Yemen"
Unfortunately, in this day of warped Military Exceptionalism as the civic religion, a
4-Star pedigree fronting weak arguments makes them essentially unassailable. No matter how
immoral, idiotic or costly to the taxpayers.
Mad Dog Mattis got a free ride with his logically incoherent, hyper-belligerent
pronouncements related to the National Security Strategy. Expect no different response to his
perverse rationalizations of the Yemen catastrophe.
Generals and Admirals now pop off stupid and dangerous opinions right and left and are
never challenged by an MSM that is bedazzled by anyone wearing stars on their shoulders.
Mattis' case for Yemen is not only weak, it's pathetic. Too bad the co-opted and seduced
MSM will never suggest that to the public at large deluded by the omnipresent propaganda of
the National Security State.
Nothing will change until the undeserved fawning adoration of the War Machine Elite is
substantially attenuated.
The neocons will stop at nothing to bring down anyone they suspect of threatening Israel or
U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East.
First, they lied about WMDs in Iraq and started a completely illegal war, killing millions
and devastating that country for generations. That led directly to the creation of ISIS and
the havoc it has wrought on both Iraq and Syria (and increasingly in other countries).
Then under Obama and Sec. Clinton, they allowed the military takeover of Egypt by the
murderous and oppressive El-Sisi and launched an aggressive war of regime change in Libya,
throwing both North African countries into turmoil.
Then they supported the brutal and savage ongoing Saudi war against Yemen to curb
non-existent Iranian influence, followed by politically isolating Qatar for its supposed
chumminess with Iran.
The neocons will do absolutely anything to bring down the Iranian regime, no matter how
many foreign and American lives and destroyed to achieve that end.
The details of Mattis' letter of indulgence do not matter as much as the fact that he is
willing to defend the indefensible. Even if his professed concerns were not only genuine, but
actually reflected reality, he also has to know better than anybody else within the
administration about the consequences of the US-backed Saudi/UAE invasion of Yemen.
Mattis has joined Graham and Albright in the "worth it" campaign to sustain and extend
perfectly predictable atrocities.
If he wants to make the case that we cannot accept uncertainty with respect to an alleged
Iranian aggression towards Saudi Arabia – and with even more unlikely acquiescence by
the Houthi to let Iran use them the way the US uses the Kurds – or even assuming that
Mattis wants to misrepresent possible Houthi blowback against Saudi Arabia as "Iranian" just
for convenience – then it should be clear that he is claimng we can easily accept
uncertainty with respect to Yemeni blowback against the US – blowback that he also uses
to justify the US campaign inside Yemen, and that fueled Obama's pathological obsession with
ideological cleansing in Yemen and other prospective "safe harbors".
Mattis is proving the validity of the actual Powell Doctrine – if you join it, you
own it – both with respect to US co-belligerence in Yemen, and with respect to Mattis
personally. He is also proving the observation that anybody who is willing to join an
administration as criminal as that of Bush, Obama or Trump is unlikely to do any good –
by their voluntary association they have irredeemably tainted themselves.
We do not want to get in the middle of this Sunni vs. Shiite war. The Saudis want to destroy
the Shiites in Yemen and we are fools at best and criminals at worst to help them. The people
of Yemen are no threat to the US and for theAmerican Government to cooperate with the Saudis
in the murderof Yemeni women and children is revolting.
Americans have heard for years that supporting "democracy" and popular uprisings throughout
the Middle East are in our national interests, the basis being that oppressed people are more
likely to resort to terrorism.
Yet in the cases of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and now Yemen popular revolutions of Shias
demanding equal rights are actually deemed a threat to our national security.
The neocons have gotten so deep in the Gulf/Israel v. Iran conflict that they're not even
keeping to the ostensible reasons for interventionism.
"... "We believe that Russia was responsible for this attack, and we call on the Russian government to answer all questions related to this incident, and to provide full information to the OPCW [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. No nation -- Russia, China, or anybody else, any other nation -- should be using chemical weapons and nerve agents," McMaster said, following what critics have called a belated Wednesday statement casting blame on Moscow for the attack on Skripal. ..."
If H.R. McMaster is on his way out of the White House, he's going out with two middle fingers raised and pointed in the direction
of the Kremlin.
"Russia is also complicit in [Syrian dictator Bashar] Assad's atrocities," McMaster, President Trump's national security adviser,
said Thursday during an appearance at a discussion of the Syrian civil war held at the U.S. Holocaust memorial museum.
His voice raised, McMaster used harsher and more moralistic language than his boss does in characterizing Russia's geopolitical
influence, and unequivocally blamed the Kremlin for "the abhorrent nerve agent attack" on a former double agent,
Sergei Skripal , and proposed "serious political and economic consequences" for Russian aggression.
"We believe that Russia was responsible for this attack, and we call on the Russian government to answer all questions related
to this incident, and to provide full information to the OPCW [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. No nation --
Russia, China, or anybody else, any other nation -- should be using chemical weapons and nerve agents," McMaster said, following
what critics have called
a belated Wednesday statement casting blame on Moscow for the attack on Skripal.
McMaster's brief remarks, lasting under 20 minutes, came as the Army three-star general is the subject of furious speculation
that Trump will soon fire him and install hardliner ex-ambassador John Bolton atop the National Security Council. His capstone achievement
thus far has been a Russia-and-China-centric
security strategy
that has been conspicuously out of step with Trump's rhetoric and actions toward both countries.
"Russia has done nothing to encourage Assad to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid, to respect ceasefires and de-escalation agreements
or to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254's call for a U.N.-monitored political process," McMaster said.
Those remarks suggested that Trump got suckered during his 2017 rounds of personal diplomacy with Vladimir Putin. In November,
Trump and Putin issued a joint statement firmly
pledging support for what is known as the 2254 Process -- though critics considered it a cover for Moscow to continue ensuring support
for its client, Assad -- that "took note" of Assad's "recent commitment to the Geneva process and constitutional reform and elections
as called for under UNSCR 2254."
"... The problem is that this would have some semblance of solubility were it not for Israel. Israel desperately, repeat desperately, wants the U.S. to go to war in a very big way in the ME. That could tip the scales. ..."
"... I hope you are wrong, but Trump sees very clearly what "Wartime President" did for the cipher Bush. It's the only straw left for him to grasp at ..."
This post was about Mattis being the only "grown-up in the room".
I'm not sure that's something to be reassured about. Brian Cloughley is a seasoned
military writer and analyst. A few years ago he wrote a piece on Mattis that was not very
complimentary. If even half of it is right, we should all be worried.
Trump's mojo has evaporated. He has no coattails. He has negative coattails. So it is time
for war.
The problem is that this would have some semblance of solubility were it not for
Israel. Israel desperately, repeat desperately, wants the U.S. to go to war in a very big way
in the ME. That could tip the scales.
I hope you are wrong, but Trump sees very clearly what "Wartime President" did for the
cipher Bush. It's the only straw left for him to grasp at .
Do some of you ding-a-lings actually think Trump can go off the rails
against the bureaucracy when he's got Mueller trying to crawl up his
ass? He's got to find a balance somehow. He's got to stay alive. Both
politically and personally.
If you are interested in Higgins and 'Bellingcat', you might want be interested in a
'Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media' which has recently been set up by a group of
British academics.
At the moment, work which has already been done is being prepared for publication on the
site. However, some of it has already appeared on the blog of one of the members, Tim
Hayward.
This includes a detailed discussion of the report of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism'
on the Khan Sheikhoun attack by Paul McKeigue.
His professorship, at Edinburgh, is in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics. This
means that, unlike most of us interested in these matters, with the obvious exception of
Theodore Postol, he has a grasp of a lot of relevant science.
A basic tool of his trade is a technique called 'Bayesian analysis', one of whose many
applications is to separate out genetic factors in disease from others. His use of it in the
piece may make bits of it somewhat hard going for those of us whose scientific education
stopped at school.
But if you are interested in a demonstration of the way that the kind of pure charlatanry
propagated by Higgins and Kaszeta has come to be accepted uncritically by supposed impartial
international bodies, you should read the piece.
Also on Hayward's blog is an article which was submitted to the Guardian's 'Comment is
Free' page, in response to a piece by Olivia Solon smearing those who have had the temerity
to suggest that the 'White Helmets' may be something less than a band of disinterested
charity workers, and an account of the attempts of the 'Working Group' to get a response from
the paper.
Thanks for the link. But what Mattis has said relates to the latest accusations, not early
ones. Key paragraphs:
'A deadly sarin attack on another rebel-held area in April 2017 prompted President Donald
Trump to order a U.S. missile strike on the Shayrat airbase, from which the Syrian operation
is said to have been launched.
'"We are on the record and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they would be
ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical (weapons) convention," Mattis said.'
So he is not repudiating the conventional wisdom according to which sarin was used at Khan
Sheikhoun, and the possibility of a military response to a fresh 'false flag' is left open.
Unless he is basing his accusation on credible evidence, this to be blunt, comes close to
inciting jihadists to atrocity.
The extent -- and unscrupulousness -- of the mounting propaganda campaign in relation to
the recently claims is well brought out in a piece by Rick Sterling in 'Consortium News' on
Sunday. Whether those involved are still hoping to precipitate a serious American military
intervention, and whether those hopes might be realistic, I cannot say.
This makes the detailed demonstration by Professor McKeigue of the frankly farcical nature
of the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism' report into Khan Sheikhoun, to which I linked, all the
more important. In addition to exposing the total dependence of its analysis on a completely
incredible claim about the aircraft which is supposed to have delivered the chemical weapon,
and discussing much other evidence, he brings out a key point about developments in 'chemical
forensics' over the past years.
As well as the 1995 sarin attacks, the 2001 anthrax letter attacks led to an enormous
investment of money and intellectual energy in the development of analytical techniques
making it possible to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons incidents. A fascinating
article entitled 'Tracing a Threat' by Bethany Halford in 'Chemistry & Engineering News
World' in February 2012 provides a good picture of what the state of play was at that
time.
She quotes an expert called Joseph Chipuk, from a consultancy called 'Signature Science'
in Austin, explaining how the 'spectra' -- different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation
associated with different 'impurities' in samples, including 'environmental' ones, such as
soil, fragments of weapons, and clothing -- can be matched with reconstructions of possible
'synthetic pathways'.
The levels of sophistication of which this kind of analysis was already capable, he made
clear, are close to breathtaking:
'To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says
that the synthetic chemists on his team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as
2,000 times in an "almost robotic manner," following a database that tells them exactly what
conditions to use. They then hand off the product to the analytical chemists, who look at all
the tiny impurities that turn up along with the toxic chemical -- "the stuff that's down in
the weeds," as Chipuk describes it. From there, the hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of
spectra that are collected go to statisticians and computer scientists who work their magic
to tease out the unique attribution signatures.'
At the end of the article, Halford quotes Chipuk again making clear that improvement is
continuous in a way that is making it quite extraordinarily difficult to fool analysts who
are genuinely looking for the truth -- as not only Dan Kaszeta but, very regrettably, key
figures at the OPCW and some of its 'Designated Laboratories' do not appear to be:
'"The fact is that technology continues to improve, instrumentation continues to improve,
and computers continue to improve. The chances of someone being able to slip by undetected
are getting smaller and smaller," says Signature Science's Chipuk. "If you were to choose to
do something like this, the science is going to catch up to you."'
In relation to the claims now being made, what is initially at issue is simply the
question of whether the 'impurities' identified by the 'spectra' in samples from the
incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal match.
What characterised the 'hexamine hypothesis' as put forward by Kaszeta was the -- close to
surreal -- suggestion that a single substance, hexamine, was a 'smoking gun'. To anyone who
had taken the trouble to read easily accessible discussions of the methodology, such as
Halford's piece, it would be apparent that it is simply ludicrous to base a claim on a single
substance -- particularly given that hexamine is also used in explosives.
In the 'Reuters' report on 30 January, we were told:
'Two compounds in the Ghouta sample matched those also found in Khan Sheikhoun, one formed
from sarin and the stabilizer hexamine and another specific fluorophosphate that appears
during sarin production, the tests showed.'
So we have an -- unidentified -- compound which supposedly establishes that the hexamine
did indeed form part of the sarin production process, rather than of the explosive charge.
And we are then told of the presence of another compound, which are told is 'another specific
fluorophosphate': why not tell us which?
To anyone interested in actually making sense of the evidence, to have a mere two
compounds mentioned, and those not adequately identified, suggests an alternative
possibility: that people who knew details of the 'synthetic pathway' by which Syrian
government sarin had been synthesised leaked them to those who were producing the substance
for a 'false flag.' It would have been beyond the capabilities of a relatively primitive
operation to produce any kind of close fit -- to get a couple of compounds to match would
probably not have been difficult at all.
If this suspicious interpretation if false, there is a very simple way to refute it -- and
General Mattis is in a perfect position to do this.
The close links between the American and British 'intelligence communities' have been
stressed in comments on this thread. It is clear that in relation to Syrian chemical weapons,
there was a division of labour.
Analysis of 'environmental' samples was concentrated at the British OPCW-certified
facility, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down in Wiltshire.
Meanwhile, preparations for the dismantling of the Syrian chemical arsenal were the made at
one of the two American OPCW-certified laboratories, the U.S. Army's Edgewood Chemical
Biological Center in Maryland.
The destruction of the 581 tonnes of the sarin precursor methylphosphonyl difluoride, or
DF, aboard the specially kitted out vessel 'M.V. Cape Ray' in the Mediterranean was announced
in August 2014. In the extensive reporting on the preparations for this, it was made
absolutely clear that -- as one would expect -- the vessel was equipped with a proper
analytical laboratory, with OPCW scientists involved as well as those from the Edgewood
Center.
In a post entitled 'Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards?' shortly after the Khan
Sheikhoun attack, and then in two 'open letters' to the members of our Defence and Foreign
Affairs Committees, I pointed to the mass of evidence suggesting that the test results from
different incidents did not match each other or those from the stocks destroyed on the 'Cape
Ray.'
The publicly available evidence, I argued, provided strong reason to believe that results
from Porton Down and the OPCW confirmed the claim made by the Russians, supposedly on the
basis of tests from their own OPCW-certified laboratory, that the sarin used at Khan Al-Asal
and Ghouta was a 'cottage industry' product. This was also what Seymour Hersh claimed that
tests carried out at Porton Down had revealed about the sarin used at Ghouta - he used the
term 'kitchen sarin.'
What the Reuters report has -- perhaps inadvertently -- confirmed is that Porton Down had
in fact tested 'environmental' samples from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013, the
first where sarin was used in Syria, by suggesting that tests from that incident as well as
those at Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun matched the results from the stocks on the 'Cape Ray':
'Laboratories working for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
compared samples taken by a U.N. mission in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta after the Aug. 21,
2013 attack, when hundreds of civilians died of sarin gas poisoning, to chemicals handed over
by Damascus for destruction in 2014.
'The tests found "markers" in samples taken at Ghouta and at the sites of two other nerve
agent attacks, in the towns of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib governorate on April 4, 2017 and Khan
al-Assal, Aleppo, in March 2013, two people involved in the process said.
'"We compared Khan Sheikhoun, Khan al-Assal, Ghouta," said one source who asked not to be
named because of the sensitivity of the findings. "There were signatures in all three of them
that matched."'
Can anyone seriously believe that if the tests we know to have been done on at Porton Down
had established what this 'source' who does not have the guts to the identify himself claims,
this fact would not have been trumpeted to the skies -- first when the results from Ghouta
matched those from Khan Al-Asal, and then when both matched those from the 'Cape Ray'?
Allright -- sometimes the practically incredible turns out to be true. But if he has any
evidence on which to base his claims, General Mattis should have the courage of his
convictions, and order the disclosure of the relevant 'spectra.'
You are wrong about this. That the 'chain of custody' principle has been flagrantly
violated in the reports of the 'Fact-Finding Mission' and the 'Joint Investigative Mechanism'
is patently the case, and in itself reason why the almost unanimous acceptance of these in
the MSM is scandalous. But that is a separate issue.
The reasons why the test results from the various laboratories were critical were set out
last April in my '"Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards"?' piece, and the two 'open letters'
to the members of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees pointing out the need for
clarification as to what was being claimed about the test results.
Let me recap, and update.
An example of the kind of 'chemical forensics' one needs in incidents like this was
provided by the analysis of test results on 'shell and soil' samples purporting to derive
from the Khan Al-Asal incident on 19 March 2013 which formed part of the document from the
Russian OPCW-certified laboratory which was submitted to the UN Secretary-General on 9 July
that year.
On 4 September, as part of the attempt to stop the visible attempt to use Ghouta to create
an unstoppable momentum towards the destruction of the Syrian government, more details of
what looks like an expanded version of the original document were made public by the Russian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In it they claimed that:
'shell and soil samples contained nerve agents -- sarin gas and diisopropylfluorophosphate
-- not synthesized in an industrial environment, which was used by Western states for
producing chemical weapons during World War II.'
It was also made clear that the conclusions rested upon precisely the kind of very complex
analysis Bethany Halford is describing:
'We highlight that the Russian report is extremely specific. It is a scientific and
technical document containing about 100 pages with many tables and diagrams of spectral
analysis of the samples. We expect that it will significantly assist in the investigation
into this incident by the UN. Unfortunately, it has in fact not started yet.'
Unfortunately, the detailed 'spectra' have not been released, but they have certainly been
analysed by experts at the OPCW and that organisation's 'Designated Laboratories' in the
West, including Porton Down. We know that the results from the materials tested on the 'Cape
Ray' will show a sarin precursor 'manufactured in an industrial environment.'
To prove what Mattis and others want to claim it is necessary that the 'spectra' from none
of the other tests match those in the Russian report, and the 'markers' from the 'Cape Ray'
materials are the same as those from Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, and Khan Al-Asal. If there are
serious 'chain of custody' problems, the 'markers' from the four sets of tests might not be
sufficient to establish Syrian government culpability -- a lack of a match would be quite
sufficient to establish that the indictment cannot be accepted as it stands.
As I brought out in my post last April, the publicly available evidence -- of which
Hersh's 'Red Line and Rat Line' article and subsequent interviews form an important part --
strongly suggests the Russian claims that the toxin used in both Khan Al-Asal and also Ghouta
was 'cottage industry', as they put it, or 'kitchen sarin', as he put it, are correct.
It is simply not a refutation of these claims to treat one compound supposed to validate
the 'hexamine hypothesis', and an unspecified fluorophosphate, which could be the
diisopropylfluorophosphate reported by the Russians, or hexafluorophosphate, as conclusive
evidence. (The implications, or lack of them, would be quite different, depending on which
compound it was.)
And all this hush-hush whisper-whisper from 'diplomats and scientists' who are not
prepared to be identified, as well as assurances from that supposedly 'independent' expert
Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, only add to the grounds for scepticism. As I brought out in
my post, he is under the strongest possible suspicion of having been involved in covering up,
and quite possibly colluding in, the 'false flags.'
If they have evidence to support the case, then let Western governments produce the
'spectra' -- as also should the Russians. We do not need complete reports, which may need to
be kept secret for perfectly good reasons -- simply the 'many tables and diagrams' which must
exist. Once these were out in the open, then it would be much easier to have an informed
argument.
Most of this ground I covered last April. However, there is some crucial new context. Part
of this is provided by a report in 'The Intercept' last October, entitled 'NSA Document Says
Saudi Prince Directly Ordered Coordinated Attack By Syrian Rebels On Damascus.' As it
explains:
'According to a top-secret National Security Agency document provided by whistleblower
Edward Snowden, the March 2013 rocket attacks were directly ordered by a member of the Saudi
royal family, Prince Salman bin Sultan, to help mark the second anniversary of the Syrian
revolution. Salman had provided 120 tons of explosives and other weaponry to opposition
forces, giving them instructions to "light up Damascus" and "flatten" the airport, the
document, produced by U.S. government surveillance on Syrian opposition factions, shows.'
This was on 18 March -- the day before Khan Al-Asal. Further relevant context is provided
by a piece in February 2017 on the 'Monitor on Massacre Marketing' site by Adam Larson,
entitled 'What happened on March 19, 2013?' which is subtitled 'The First Bodies Tossed
Across Obama's "Red Line" in Syria.'
This starts by reviewing the -- ample -- evidence that the Khan Al-Asal attack came at a
point where there was very visible enthusiasm on the part of a lot of people in the United
States and Western Europe for intervention in support of the 'Assad must go' agenda, so that
he had every incentive to avoid chemical weapons use, and the insurgents every incentive to
produce a 'false flag.'
And Larson goes on to note that 'Ironically, the first solid news of the feared chemical
attack came in the form of a Syrian government announcement on March 19 that their forces had
been gassed by "terrorists" in a town just west of Aleppo" -- that is, the Shi'ite town of
Khan Al-Asal.
There follow detailed reviews of the evidence of another incident on the same day, in
which the victims appeared to be insurgents, at the Damascus suburb variously transliterated
as Otaybah and Uteibah, and more fragmentary and puzzling evidence about events at Homs.
And Larson goes on to suggest that a three-pronged 'false flag' was planned for 19 March,
in Aleppo, Damascus and Homs -- the country's three largest cities. This would obviously fit
very well with the NSA intercept, in that it would suggest that the intent was to portray
these as Assad's savage response to the attacks in Damascus, thus, hopefully, generating
unstoppable momentum for American military intervention.
This seems to me eminently plausible, but it leaves open two possible interpretations of
Khan Al-Asal. When insurgents who are difficult to control are given access to weapons like
sarin, there is an obvious possibility of matters developing in unexpected directions, either
as the result of their bungling an attack, or succumbing to the temptation to use it against
government forces.
However, a different set of unintended consequences is also possible. It could be that
Syrian intelligence, perhaps with the assistance of Russian and/or Iranian, and with a
combination of 'SIGINT' and 'HUMINT' methods quite possibly being deployed, knew precisely
what was going on -- and had double agents inside the groups preparing the 'false flags.'
Rather than wait until the inevitable chorus calling for all-out air strikes began, it
could well have made sense to turn one of the incidents into a 'false flag' within a 'false
flag.'
The anti-Assad camp would then have been effectively 'snookered.' They would have faced a
situation where they would know that, if they acceded to the calls from the Syrians and
Russians for a proper UN/OPCW investigation, making a rigorous use of 'chemical forensics',
these would implicate the insurgents. And if the evidence suggested that it was these who had
crossed Obama's 'red line', it would have been game and set, and probably match, to the
Syrian and Russian governments.
Irrespective of people's views on what interpretation is plausible in relation to Khan
Al-Asal, the important point is that strategies which rely strongly on convert action -- as
the 'régime change' projects I outlined in the current post do -- are inherently
liable to run out of control. The uncontrollability of their instruments, and the possibility
of covert action meeting covert action in return, are always liable to generate unintended
consequences which can escalate.
As soon as the possible that an impartial investigation would implicate the insurgents was
real, in relation to Khan Al-Asal, irrespective of whether the imputation would have been
justified, the alternative to facing a complete collapse of their projects in Syria, for
Western governments, was inherently likely to be at best covering up, at worst colluding in,
further 'false flags.' Moreover, intense pressure had to be mounted, to ensure that what were
supposed to be sources of independent expertise supported their cover-ups.
This pattern, I am suggesting is common both to history of the 'StratCom' in which
Christopher Steele has been involved, and that relating to chemical weapons use in Syria.
Particularly when the 'Fourth Estate' ceases to do its job, a likely result is the
progressive systematic corruption of institutions.
You have read one of the articles on what James Mattis said on Friday about sarin? He quite
clearly states that the United States has no evidence that the Syrian government has used
sarin. Given the way, the French, British, German, etc. intelligence services share
information, that suggests that if James Mattis is speaking the truth then no one in NATO,
except perhaps for Turkey given Erdogan's recent behavior, has any evidence either. This
means that both incidents, East Ghouta and Khan Shaykhoun, and any other incidents that are
alleged by the terrorists to have involved sarin are not what they are claimed to be in
western msm and most western politicians. Bellingcat and all the other NGOs who have made
similar claims about sarin are all wrong.
Dickerson: "What keeps you awake at night?" Mattis: "Nothing, I keep other people awake at night." and. . . MATTIS: A conflict in North Korea, John, would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most
people's lifetimes. Why do I say this? The North Korean regime has hundreds of artillery cannons and rocket
launchers within range of one of the most densely populated cities on earth, which is the
capital of South Korea.
We are working with the international community to deal with this issue. This regime is a
threat to the region, to Japan, to South Korea, and in the event of war, they would bring
danger to China and to Russia as well.
But the bottom line is, it would be a catastrophic war if this turns into combat, if we are
not able to resolve this situation through diplomatic means.
here
We shouldn't expect that any meeting and talks would actually solve anything, because the
DPRK and US positions are basically irreconcilable. DPRK wants the US out of Korea, US wants
DPRK to denuke (disarm).
The DPRK strategy, probably, is to spawn endless meetings for a long
time. The Vietnam peace talks serve as a model, first with the parties discussing the shape
of the table, etc. I look for DPRK to play this game.
It's a basic east vs. west gambit, where the east has the patience to endure years whereas
the west expects quick results.
"... We're keeping our eyes out for another report confirming that Hick's account had been hacked (by shadowy Russia-affiliated hackers, no doubt). ..."
As
NBC News pointed out, Hicks' hacking claim raises questions about who hacked the account and why. But the committee wasn't able
to pursue those questions because Hicks, like many other members of the White House staff who have appeared before the House Intel
Committee, has refused to answer questions about her time at the White House or her experiences during the transition -- and also
because she was appearing voluntarily and not under a subpoena for her testimony.
It is standard practice for lawmakers to ask witnesses about phone numbers and email accounts. However, it is uncommon, according
to people familiar with the committee process, for a witness to tell lawmakers that he or she no longer has access to past accounts.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has famously been pursuing the emails of Trump associates and other records from the campaign period,
transition and the Trump administration.
Mueller recently sent a subpoena to former Trump aide Sam Nunberg ordering Nunberg to turn over documents relating in any way
to 10 current and former Trump associates, including Hicks.
As
NBC points out, Corey Lewandowski, Trump's first campaign manager (who reportedly dated Hicks during the campaign while he was
married to another woman), is slated to testify before the committee on Thursday.
We're keeping our eyes out for another report confirming that Hick's account had been hacked (by shadowy Russia-affiliated hackers,
no doubt).
What is always a mystery to me is why these email servers are attached and available to the public Internet. Any script kiddie
with a version of "crack" can eventually guess a password that is composed of regular words or favorite clichés. Not to mention
some inherently hackable OSs.
Are your email accounts all hosted on servers not attached to the internet?
Email servers, even ones attached to the internet, can be protected. Not perfectly, but well enough. Throw in proper use of
non-trivial passwords and you become even safer in a relatively private environment such as a corporation or campaign committee
might set up. When email services are offered freely to everyone you are always at risk, because the hosts will have full access
to whatever you send and receive.
One more thing: make certain you can trust those running your servers. Then you won't have to hire someone to kill them when
they steal stuff via direct access to the servers. Think Seth Rich.
President Trump
reportedly berated former White House communications director Hope Hicks the day before her resignation, according
to a new report.
CNN's Erin Burnett reported Wednesday
that Trump was angry with Hicks following her closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence
Committee, in which she reportedly revealed she was sometimes required to tell "white lies" as
part of her work in the White House.
Burnett reported one of Trump's "close allies" told CNN that Trump asked Hicks after her
testimony "how she could be so stupid."
"Apparently, that was the final straw for Hope Hicks," Burnett said.
"There are no words to adequately
express my gratitude to President Trump. I wish the president and his administration the very
best as he continues to lead our country," Hicks said in a statement announcing her departure.
The 29-year-old has served as a top adviser to Trump since he launched his presidential
campaign in 2015.
Hicks has set no departure date but is expected to leave the White House in the next few
weeks, White House officials said.
Her departure comes one day after her lengthy interview with the House Intelligence panel as
part of its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
So this pro-Hillary bastion of Neoliberal innuentndo -- Guardian -- does not not like Hicks.
As onecommneter noted " The poisonous Guardian which is so toxic I would advise folks not to use
it even as an ass wipe, did not allow comments as is their custom now."
Source
What is despicable pressitute is this guy: "The Washington Post has
found that "members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times
throughout the campaign" in "at least 19 known meetings"."
Hicks, 29, had the high-pressure job last summer of
crafting , with the president, an explanation for his son Donald Trump Jr's secret
meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in New York in 2016 – an explanation later
revealed as false. More recently, Hicks was said to have run the botched White House response
to domestic abuse allegations
against former aide Rob Porter, with whom she has been linked romantically.
... ... ...
Hicks aggressively defended the president-elect and his team against charges of
inappropriate ties to Russian figures.
"The campaign had no contact with Russian officials," she said. Two days after the
election, she said: "We are not aware of any campaign representatives that were in touch with
any foreign entities before yesterday, when Mr Trump spoke with many world leaders."
The Washington Post has
found that "members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times
throughout the campaign" in "at least 19 known meetings".
Discrepancies such as those have perhaps accelerated Hicks' political education. On
Tuesday, the House intelligence committee questioned her for close to nine hours about the
campaign's Russia ties.
Hicks refused to answer some of the most sensitive questions, including about the
explanation for Trump Jr's meeting with Russians, according to House Democrat Adam
Schiff.
But Hicks was said to have made one concession, admitting to having told, on an
unspecified number of occasions, certain "white lies" on the president's behalf.
Hope Hicks, President Trump's communications director and one of his longest-serving advisers, said
Wednesday that she planned to leave the White House in the next few weeks.
When Hope Hicks walked into
President Trump's private study on Wednesday to inform him that she planned to leave the White House -- concluding a
can't-make-it-up run in which Ms. Hicks, a woman with zero political experience three years ago,
became the closest aide to the most
powerful man in the world
-- the president responded like a father whose daughter had outgrown the nest.
According to a person with
knowledge of their conversation, Mr. Trump expressed an understanding of Ms. Hicks's desire to pursue a new phase of
her life. But, the person added, he also acknowledged something else: that Ms. Hicks's happiness in her role had
begun to wane lately, after a trying few weeks in the public glare.
The
departure
of Ms. Hicks, arguably the least experienced person to ever hold the job of White House communications director,
capped an astounding rise for a political neophyte whose seemingly implausible career hinged on a deep understanding
of, and bottomless patience for, her mercurial charge.
But as someone with a pull
toward discretion -- Ms. Hicks, 29, who grew up in the buttoned-up suburb of Greenwich, Conn., the daughter and
granddaughter of prominent public relations men -- seeing her name splashed across international tabloids had taken a
toll.
In
explaining her decision to friends, Ms. Hicks, a communications director who rarely spoke publicly, made clear that
she had no interest in being at the center of the public conversation.
That
aversion to the spotlight had become increasingly difficult to maintain.
Ms. Hicks's role in helping
write a statement by Donald J. Trump Jr. about a 2016 meeting with Russian officials has
drawn attention
from federal investigators. On Tuesday, she
testified
for eight hours before the House Intelligence Committee and made headlines for admitting that she had
sometimes told fibs as part of her job.
Last month, the man she had
been dating, the former White House staff secretary Rob Porter, was accused by his former wives of domestic abuse,
sparking an ongoing scandal that offered a glimpse of her closely guarded personal life and drew paparazzi to her
apartment building. There were rumblings that Mr. Trump questioned Ms. Hicks's judgment after the White House
initially defended Mr. Porter, although a bevy of administration officials, including the president's daughter Ivanka
Trump, later vouched for Ms. Hicks in on-the-record interviews.
Ms. Hicks had stopped
monitoring news coverage of herself, restricting her television intake to Fox News, which she often watched on mute,
assuming that the Trump-friendly network would rarely include her name on its chyrons.
Friends who reached out to
her, offering support or guidance, acknowledged that Ms. Hicks had been distressed. But they also received text
messages from her in which she declared that she was tougher than people assumed.
Ms. Hicks's career followed a
curious trajectory. As a young model, she appeared on the covers of young adult paperbacks and in Ralph Lauren
catalogs before going to work for Ms. Trump's apparel and licensing brand. Even after she had begun serving as an
Oval Office gatekeeper, she maintained a low public profile, which fueled the fascination -- and sometimes disdain --
of those who watch national politics closely.
Recent Comments
paula
1 hour ago
"I don't worry about Hope, I fully expert her to land on her feet," says Feldman.Seems she should
land in jail on obstruction of justice...
MS
1 hour ago
One can already foresee the title of her future tell all book, ''Little White Lies".
Emma
1 hour ago
No one cares about hope hicks. I hope she never gets another job.
Trump's relationship with Hope was always puzzling and oddly salacious. Hicks dated Trump's
campaign manager Corey Lewandowski while he was still married, to Alison Hardy. She later began dating former White
House Staff Secretary Rob Porter. This is not acceptable in the Me too and Times Up era. I am a woman and I have seen
inappropriate office romances that adversely affected everyone in the office.
Point is Trump's penchant for surrounding himself with beauty queens is inappropriate. Her behavior is also
inappropriate. Then, there are the lies. Sometimes known as, "Alternative facts".
Beautiful girl. She will have a great career at Fox.
"Ms. Hicks's success was viewed as a product of other qualities, including her nuanced
understanding of Mr. Trump's moods, her ability to subtly nudge him away from his coarser impulses..."
She did that? When? And what on earth is a "nuanced understanding of Mr. Trump's moods?" Angry and angrier?
Soon-to-be-former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks hasn't even left the West
Wing yet, but unsurprisingly, she's already received a flood of offers from powerful publishers
and producers promising eight-figure paydays if she's wiling to provide juicy insider details
like those.
A friend of Hicks' who spoke with the
Daily Mail said the communications director - who once handled as many as 250 media
requests per day - was "overwhelmed" by the response. As the Mail points out, the desirability
of Hicks' story has increased because of her informal position as the "most glamorous person in
the West Wing."
One anonymous source from inside the publishing industry even went so far as to compare
Hicks with Jackie Kennedy.
One insider told the Mail that Hicks kept a diary of her time in the White House, which
could be an incredible resource should she decide to write a memoir.
What would it take to do your story as a mini-series or on the big screen? I can get the
financing, like tomorrow, and make you rich and even more famous. You have an incredible
story. Let's talk!'
And since then Hick has been overwhelmed with messages offering millions of dollars in
advances for book deals by major publishers, and offers from Hollywood to make biopics about
her glamorous political and scandalous life.
As one publishing executive told DailyMail.com, 'Next to Ivanka and Melania, Hope is the
woman closest to the president, and knows all the secrets, all the foibles, all the
quirks.
'She's also the most glamorous White House female since Jackie Kennedy. Her story will be
a blockbuster. I have the authority to offer her an advance of $10 million, and we're open to
negotiate.'
If she does decide to publish, it'd be prudent for Hicks to hold an auction. Hicks could
probably walk away with an agreement to keep 15% of total sales.
'If a book were to happen, it would undoubtedly be the subject of an auction among the
major publishers, which would be a key factor in driving up the amount of the advance.'
Another prestigious literary agent who has represented Pulitzer Prize-winning political
journalists, among other high-profile, celebrity clients – and receives a fifteen
percent commission on every book sold -- told DailyMail.com: 'Hope Hicks was a star
Washington insider.
'I always saw a book coming from her when the time was right. Now the time's right.
Overnight she's become a potential goldmine.
Several Trump confidants, employees and advisers have books in the works. Corey Lewandowski,
Trump's first campaign manager who briefly dated Hicks during the campaign while he was married
to another woman, published a book last year that earned high praise from Trump.
Former Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced in December that he was publishing a West Wing
tell-all of his own.
And while we imagine Spicer knows where at least some of the bodies are buried, James
Comey's book - "A Higher Honor: Truth, Lies and Leadership" - is set to be published in
mid-April. It already has a sizable backlog of preorders.
Hicks is turning 30 in October. During her time running the communications department, Hicks
rarely gave interviews or on-the-record statements - which only deepened the mystique
surrounding her personality. That and she famously dated Lewandowski and former Staff Secretary
Rob Porter.
We imagine, after all those months of silence, Hicks probably has something to say. The
question is: Will she risk her relationship with the president to say it?
So one year ago McMaster was under attack and survived. Note that this was the time of
appointment of the Special Prosecutor which changed the dynamics, probably preserving his scalp.
This time might be different.
The Afghanistan strategy McMaster is pushing, with the support of Defense Secretary James
Mattis, would send roughly 3,000-5,000 U.S. and NATO troops to Afghanistan, according to a
separate source familiar with the internal deliberations. These troops would be sent to help
bulk up the Afghan National Security Forces, which, after years of U.S. assistance, are still
struggling against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a small Islamic State presence in the
country.
According to the Washington Post , the new strategy "would authorize the Pentagon, not the White
House, to set troop numbers in Afghanistan and give the military far broader authority to use
airstrikes to target Taliban militants." The hope is that by increasing pressure on the
Taliban, it will force them to the negotiating table with more favorable terms for Kabul and
Washington. Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan follows a decision made last year by
then-President Barack Obama, who
announced in July that 8,400 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan through January 2017
because of the "precarious" security situation there, undoing his previous plan to draw down to
5,500 by the time he left office.
The Post reported that "those opposed to the plan have begun to refer derisively to
the strategy as 'McMaster's War,'" and this particular criticism is repeated in a handful of
negative stories about McMaster that have already cropped up this week. For those plugged into
the dicey world of Trump administration power plays, this slur has the hallmarks of a hit job
by Bannon's team. (It's worth noting that the same people who oppose McMaster are no fans of
Mattis's moderating influence on the president, but he's seen as politically untouchable for
now.)
In January, McMaster quashed rumors of his departure, telling reporters "I have a job and it is my
intention to go as long and hard as I can in service of the President of the nation," adding that it
was "a tremendous honor to do this job every day."
Trump's first National Security Advisor, Michael
Flynn, resigned shortly after taking office amid a controversy over whether he lied to Vice President
Mike Pence about his contacts with Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.
On Thursday, the Pentagon directed all inquiries about McMaster to the White House. "General
McMaster works for President Trump. Any decision with regards to staff, the White House will make
those determinations," said chief spokesperson Dana White. Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary
Sarah Sanders told reporters on Tuesday that Trump "still has confidence in General McMaster."
A Source within the White House, leaking to CNN, reports that Trump can't stand McMaster's demeanor
during briefings - and that the President considers his National Security Advisor to be "gruff and
condescending."
He prefers the briefing style of someone like CIA Director Mike Pompeo or Defense Secretary
James Mattis, who patiently answer his questions, regardless of the premise. McMaster, meanwhile,
is the person who delivers the news that Trump doesn't want to hear on a daily basis, according to
the senior Republican source.
The issue is not political but mostly stylistic, as McMaster and Mattis tend to discuss
information before it is presented to the President, the same source added. -
CNN
Kelly and McMaster both declined to comment,
however Reuters' sources were quick to add that
"tensions could blow over, at least for now, as have previous episodes of discord between the
president and other top officials who have fallen out of favor."
McSinister is the essence of Goldfinger in the old James Bond fiction. One
couldn't envision a more stereotypical "worm-tonguesque" villain in charge
of our armed forces and acting presidential "advisor".
McMaster Finally Out? Pentagon Paving Way For Return To Military:
Report
My response: Looks like the POTUS is prepping for the Return
of General Flynn.
McMaster has some very suspicious associations and has been
referenced in Q-ANON posts. He was an "OBOZO" plant.
Also, it appears that "OBOZO's" LEGAL problems are growing by the
day.
"OBOZO" maybe the first POTUS in US history to be charged
with TREASON. Also, KERRY is in a DEEP PILE OF SHIT as well. He
directed the US State Department to provide 9 million dollars to her
charity. This is ladies and gentlemen of ZH is BULLSHIT!!!!!!
CORRUPTION and CRIME as far as the EYE can see for the last four
POTUS office holders. It make me ashamed of my nation at times.
May GOD bless, guide and protect President TRUMP and the TRUMP
administration as they "DRAIN THE SWAMP".
Flynn blew the whistle on Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopath Obama, the CIA & State Dept. arming,
funding & training terror organizations.
The Criminal Deep State has had it for him ever since.
Boy you sure get a different news feed than I do.... Mine says we
have heavy ground presence in Syria (didnt under Obowel), are on
the verge of war with the NORKs after the Olympics, and our CIA
has been stirring the shit pot in Iran....
Does your news
coverage come before of after the episodes of My little pony?
The only difference between Trump and Hillary is Hillary has
better hair. Follow what Trump actually does and not what he
Tweets, HUGE difference. WE ARENT WINNING.
SecDef knows him (from in the sandbox) and might want/need him to fill a CinC
slot. The pussified O crowd cut off the balls of many of the flag ranks and
they need to be purged (Regan did that and brought in/up Starry and Papa Bear
and Vuono and Art C-ski and the other knuckle draggers).
POTUS might be
getting his foreign policy situation sorted out. McMaster hasn't ever been a
smooth team player within the Army structure--that would also endear him to
Jim, but not suit him to a staff/advisor role.
We can always blame it on Global Climate Change and the Rooskies--cover all
the bases.
Monster McMaster opening greeting to the Munich security conference, "I know OUR
good friend John McCain can't be here, as unfortunately he can't, but he brings you
good wishes"....Then he proceeded to outline Russian Election bullshit. Cyber bot
farm meddling invading Georgia BLA BLA BLA. This is why war is plausible, McMaster
is Military SWAMP.
Oh boy, some oversized ego tripping....the sheer hubris of it all....fuckers cannot
see or admit to the gross amount of meddling they have done to the world, and yet
react like little bitches when allegations are merely cooked up.
I cannot believe
that this is the
lowly
state of American political discourse in 2018 AD.
Just another Rome, only with a much bigger budget for bullshit and weaponry.
Fire him. Forget the fourth star. He is undeserving. Another scumbag trying to
upend President Trump's agenda/objectives. The scumbag conveniently doesn't
mention that the Russian Hacking didn't have an impact on the election. This
untrustworthy piece of shit never should have been brought into the fold. And
don't even think about allowing him back into the military. Fuck off you
turncoat.
This guy was the commanding officer of 3rd ACR while I was in. Only time I saw
him in Iraq was when he flew down to tell us how sorry he was, or something like
that, after we lost 1/3 of our platoon. The rest of the time he was in northern
Iraq where it was safe. While those of us unlucky enough to be in 3rd Squadron
were stuck down on the south side of Baghdad. If you read his bio they make it
out like he personally did all kinds of Rambo shit. I guess that's they way it is
for officers. Those guys will slit your throat for the next shiny thing to stick
on their uniform.
Even back then my buddy SSG Judy, just talked to him an hour
ago, told me McMaster was being groomed for bigger roles. He definitely nailed
that one.
These two and Mad Dog keep whispering "Evil Russia" at Trump and demanding US
troops keep poking a stick at the bear - meanwhile Trump knows there is no
collusion. How does that square up?
But thankfully we now have Stephen Miller, the 32-year old Trump advisor and immigration hard-liner recently blamed by Democratic
senators for scuttling their desired amnesty deal for illegal immigrants. Transparently, the Dems are trying to spoil Trump's relationship
with Miller, as they did with Bannon,
by insinuating that
Miller is pulling Trump's strings. Of course it is absurd to suggest that Trump is anything but his own man. But Miller is a
crucially important figure in the Trump administration and his influence is, from what I can tell, entirely positive for the interest
of Americans concerned with mass immigration and the very tangible threat of
Europeans and people of European descent becoming
minorities in their own countries.
Jews, and Americans overall, need more Stephen Millers. Brash, unafraid, quick-witted, verbally formidable, and unabashedly "America
First," Miller is a powerful spokesman for
economic nationalist positions
,
anti-globalism , and for preserving this country's original culture and people against the Democratic scheme to flood it with
illegal and legal immigrants whose main gift to America will be their reliable Democratic votes in every future election. Miller
is roundly despised by the establishment for his positions and rhetoric.
Nancy
Pelosi has called Miller a "White supremacist," while others on the left have
compared him to Joseph Goebbels . He's the only Jew I can think of offhand that the mainstream media actively encourages the
country to hate.
But we Jews should be honest: for every mensch like Miller, we have shmucks like
Tim Wise ,
Noel Ignativ ,
Rob Reiner , Charles Schumer, and thousands
of other high-profile Jews who seem to hate or fear White Christian Americans and seek to hasten their demise as the ethnic majority
of this country. Yes, we Jews have Miller, but we also have the ADL and the SPLC -- powerful well-funded groups who conduct witch
hunts against anyone who dares speak out against multiculturalism, open-borders, globalist doctrine, or who dares to criticize Jews.
Jewish political influence in the US is still overwhelmingly negative, despite the great work of a few good Jews.
As an American (first) and Jew (second) who supports Trump and Trumpism, the European New Right, and anyone concerned with the
long-term impacts of mass immigration, I want to see more Jews, particularly younger, Generation Z Jews move to our ideological side.
I have tried to explore my own motivations for this. Why do I find myself so far to the Right on the issue of immigration and of
protecting European cultures and peoples? Why do I hope other Jews follow me on this ideological journey? And there is
growing indication
they are.
First of all, it has nothing to do with being "self-hating", a common but largely asinine Jewish slur used against Jews who step
out of line. I neither hate myself or Jews collectively. Like many non-Jewish critics of Jews, I just want Jews to stop attacking
Europeans and their descendants in their former colonies by pushing destructive ideologies and policies.
Secondly, I agree with the major criticism of Jews and certainly of Jewish activists: that they seek to do what they think is
good for Jews, while hiding their ethnocentrism by pretending their interests are universalist. Self-interest is often disguised
as "tikun olam," bringing light to the world.
Most importantly, accepting some of the recent critique of the JQ, or the Jewish role in the West's current situation -- without
thinking the situation is simple, monocausal, or part of a grand conspiracy, I view it as important to think about what Jews can
do positively in the current year.
It seems clear that ethnic Jewish activists in the 20 th century had a conscious or subconscious fear of European Christians
maintaining their ethnic or cultural identities, and this manifested itself in the various movements MacDonald brilliantly analyzes
in the Culture of Critique : the anthropology of race, psychoanalysis, communism, the Frankfort School and Cultural Marxism.
When Jewish activists pushed through immigration reform in the US, the effects were absolutely transformative. Jews largely achieved
their goals, or maybe even surpassed them. Now, more than 50 years later, we can re-examine the question: was this actually good
for the Jews?
To me the answer to this question is a resounding NO. To look at just one simple factor: the people pouring into the US in recent
years are no more Jew-friendly then the White Americans who made up almost 90% of the county in 1960 were. In fact, they are likely
to be considerably less Jew friendly. Mexicans have no special relationship with Jews or with Israel. Neither do Somalis, or Syrians,
or Afghans, or MS-13. Identity-politics obsessed leftist college activists have already made it quite clear that
Jews who side against them are to be viewed as White s -- their Jewishness will not protect them. This trend will continue, and
Jews will become Whites in the eyes of the many people who hate Whites. However different things may have looked to our parents'
or grandparents' generation, there is no tangible benefit today to ordinary American Jews today from the importation of quarter of
Mexico's population, or to ordinary French Jews from a million new Muslims. To think otherwise is to deny reality.
A main motivation for Jewish activism on immigration and other related issues was Jewish fear of being a major outgroup in American
society. Perhaps these fears may have seemed real in the wake of the Second World War, or perhaps even then they were delusional.
Today, they seem absurd. Maybe it is a generational thing, or maybe my Jewish identification is too weak, or maybe it was the context
I grew up in; but I just can't understand American Jews having feelings of fear or hostility towards White Christian Americans in
general. I grew up around White Christians; work with them; live amongst them; and count many as friends, neighbors, colleagues or
teachers. Jewish neurosis or not, a generalized Jewish fear of American Whites is, in my view, insane. Granted, things could change
in the future if we reach such a desperate state that American Whites begin to focus on some of the negative influence Jews have
had in changing their society, and collectively determine to do something about it. But flooding the country with immigrants doesn't
lessen the possibility that will happen. Quite the opposite, it increases it.
Given that, what is really best for the Jews? As American Whites slowly begin to wake up to the reality of their own ethnic interests,
what kind of Jews do we want as our representatives in the public sphere: Stephen Miller or Charles Schumer?
From my point of view, what is "best for the Jews" is to realize that while Jewish elites have been pushing a corrosive and destructive
agenda for 50 years or more, the rest of us are under no obligation to support it. Being Jewish doesn't mean one has to be a leftist
or multiculturalist booster, or work to disenfranchise White majorities in traditionally White countries. Stephen Miller is proof
of that.
But there is another response to the question "what is good for the Jews?" that is also worth serious consideration by American
Jews. The response is: who cares? Seriously, look at the current state of Jews in America. Jews have an extremely disproportionate
share of control over the media, entertainment industry, banking and financial sector, law, medicine, academia, and important policy-making
institutions. Jews are the wealthiest ethnic group in the country. I don't allege any conspiracy here. Jews' tendency to position
ourselves close to power is well described in Benjamin Ginsberg's The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. Jews have high
IQs and are excellent verbalists, and obviously Jewish nepotism exists as well. While I abhor the contemporary politicized notion
of "privilege" that minority groups use to cover up their lack of rational argument, it would be dishonest to not admit that if there
is a privileged ethnic group in the US today, that group is not Whites as a whole, but Jews.
It is impossible to look at the situation objectively and not see that generally things have been going very well for American
Jews, and certainly for Jewish elites, for some time. There is thus no reason to spend time and energy thinking about what is good
for the Jews. Even if things do go wildly wrong for diaspora Jews in the future, we have a viable ethnostate that we know will take
us in; a luxury few other peoples in the world possess.
There are abundant reasons however to worry about the welfare of Europeans and people of European descent. The migration crisis
in Europe and the reality of looming major demographic increases in Africa and the Middle East that could drive much larger waves
of migrants are rapidly creating a potential future in which entire peoples could become minorities in their own countries. In the
US, demographic changes due to migration and considerably higher fertility rates among immigrants will alter the country permanently
unless drastic changes to immigration policies are made. Jews need to focus our "tikun olam" on the moral necessity of protecting
ethnic homelands and cultures in Europe, and the neo-Europes. In Stephen Miller we see a Jew who seems to understand what needs to
be done. There is no reason other American Jews can't follow his lead.
In my view, in 2018 what's good for the Jews is for us to stop thinking about what's good for the Jews and start thinking about
the right to self-determination and survival for the people we live amongst: the people who have facilitated the most stunning successes
of our tribe's history in diaspora to date, Americans, Europeans, and people of European descent. (Republished from
The Occidental
Observer by permission of author or representative)
Mattis is probably mentally ill. He'll gleefully kill millions more.
The terrorists are mentally ill. They would kill millions if they could.
Implacable.
Thus, the reason for the rise of Russia and the influence and respect for Putin. Russians
will kill terrorists but embrace Islamic people who want peaceful cooperation.
Peace is a long way off. The Hegemon abhors Peace and has the means and ideology to create
chaos, death and destruction anywhere on the globe.
The American economic system depends on MIC expenditures, debt, waste, corruption, and
fiscal abuse.
Nothing much will change until multi-polar economic forces come into dominance and coerce
the American changes. Those are a long way off, also, though a few of those forces are coming
into view.
Posted by: Red Ryder | Feb 12, 2018 12:21:31 PM |
2
Pentagon statement today: 550 million dolar, 2018 budget, for PKK.
(Meaning: You can defeat terrorism, but you can't you beat our purse!)
There is a massive propaganda campaing targeting Turkey in the past 2-3 days. It's coming
from international sources. BBC, AFP etc.
This is the main theme
"Turks, beware of Russia, Syria and Iran! They are your enemy. Israel is your friend! The
USA is a superpower, obey!"
I believe nobody, no muslim targets America or ordinary American people for that mater! So
any incident should be received as provocation.
Those who pull the strings in the USA, behind the doors, maybe under risk though.
@colin 3, Yes, I used to try to update the wikipedia page on the TAPI pipeline and while some
things remained on the site, most of it was edited away. Anything to do with Exxon, Chevron,
US military actions along the pipeline route, Hillary Clinton's cheerleading for the project
during the Obama era, actions taken by the US State Department in summer 2001 (pre 9-11)
aimed at pressuring the Taliban into signing off on the deal (in exchange for handing over
bin Laden, etc.) all gone. Not worth the bother; you're up against PR firms with full-time
staff devoted to sanitizing everything.
@4 CP, the corporate media PR stream, it's something I can't even watch anymore (I follow
it with Google News search just to see what the headlines are, but it's basically predictable
content so that's enough). Here and there across the web there are some honest discussions
though: https://thewire.in/219467/russia-turkey-iran-triangle-economic-interests-paramount/
I really can't see what Tillerson and Mattis have to offer Turkey other than
threats.
"If America Wasn't America, The United States Would Be Bombing It".
Damn, that's funny
yeah, i just read
the article , and while the title is indeed humorous, the content is decidedly not. but
it's a good synopsis of the unprecedented amount of death and destruction wrought on this
undeserving planet by the US of Argh.
The West and in particular Amerikkans constantly use the Circular Argument in its public
relation and propaganda statements. That kind of attitude works with an allies, nominal or
otherwise, in the cases where sovereignty/national interest is threatened that kind of
deception is treated just like that, deception.
Unfortunately Tayyip has been used as client state for long time, from Libya to Syria where
he experienced sudden awakening.
The US has reiterated that it has no plans to withdraw its forces from Manbij.
Paul Funk, the commander of US forces in Syria and Iraq, made a recent visit to Manbij
and said that the US and its partners in Syria would hit back if attacked.
"You hit us, we will respond aggressively. We will defend ourselves," Funk said.
Erdogan took aim at that, saying: "It is obvious that those, who say they will 'give a
sharp response' if they were hit, have not been hit by the Ottoman slap."
Mattis is probably mentally ill. He'll gleefully kill millions more.
The terrorists are mentally ill. They would kill millions if they could.
Implacable.
Thus, the reason for the rise of Russia and the influence and respect for Putin. Russians
will kill terrorists but embrace Islamic people who want peaceful cooperation.
Peace is a long way off. The Hegemon abhors Peace and has the means and ideology to create
chaos, death and destruction anywhere on the globe.
The American economic system depends on MIC expenditures, debt, waste, corruption, and
fiscal abuse.
Nothing much will change until multi-polar economic forces come into dominance and coerce
the American changes. Those are a long way off, also, though a few of those forces are coming
into view.
Posted by: Red Ryder | Feb 12, 2018 12:21:31 PM |
2
Conway appeared Sunday on CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper to address
questions surrounding Porter's departure, which came last week after accusations that he had
abused his two ex-wives.
Tapper asked about Porter's reported relationship with Hicks, and concerns expressed by
Jennie Willoughby, Porter's second ex-wife, that Porter would abuse Hicks, too. Conway said
that she did not worry about Hicks because she is "strong."
Throughout Donald Trump's campaign and relentlessly chaotic presidency, the single constant presence at his side, outside of his
family, has been the 29-year-old former Ralph Lauren model and White House communications director Hope Hicks.
While aides and advisers fall in and out of favor, Hicks has remained Trump's Oval Office gatekeeper, companion and sounding board,
offering consistent loyalty.
But now Hicks has herself been cast into two plotlines currently playing out in the presidential daytime reality-soap.
In one, Hicks features as a likely target in the special counsel Robert Mueller's effort to acquire cooperating witnesses in the
investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Hicks has
reportedly
been interviewed by Mueller's investigators.
Publicly, Trump has offered his support for Hicks, saying: "Hope is absolutely fantastic. She was with the campaign from the beginning,
and I could not ask for anything more. Hope is smart, very talented and respected by all."
But in private, the president is believed to have issued rare criticism of a woman who by some estimates is the most influential
figure in the administration after Trump himself.
At issue is whether Hicks, who also served as communications director during the campaign, relaxed her judgment owing to her relationship
with Porter.
White House officials have said Hicks knew that an ex-girlfriend of Porter's had informed aides that both of Porter's ex-wives
had said he was violent. Hicks continued to see him and did not tell the president. Porter denies the allegations against him.
If the unfolding episode calls into question the maturity of Hicks' judgement, she clearly is invaluable as a personal assistant.
In his campaign memoir, Let Trump Be Trump, Corey Lewandowski, the early campaign strategist – with whom, coincidentally, Hicks also
had an affair – described her steaming Trump's suit while he is wearing it.
"She's really quite talented and able," Christopher Ruddy, a close friend of the president and chief executive of the conservative
website Newsmax,
told the Washington Post .
But her professional experience, especially where is comes to matters that carry potentially legal consequences, is limited. Hicks
came to the Trumps through a PR firm that represented the Trump Organization. The family later hired her away to work exclusively
for them, furnishing her with responsibilities that included working on Ivanka Trump's fashion line.
A GQ magazine profile in June
2016 described her: "She is a hugger and a people pleaser, with long brown hair and green eyes, a young woman of distinctly all-American
flavor – the sort that inspires Tom Petty songs, not riots."
But her looks and fashion background can cause people to underestimate her. She has a background in PR and is a graduate of Dallas'
Southern Methodist University.
"... What's more the Russian government appears to have the incriminating evidence on who sanctioned the drone attacks against the Russian air base at Hmeimim and its naval port at Tartus on January 6. ..."
"... Furthermore, the drones were unlikely to have been made by Syrian militants. Russian analysis of the explosive PENT substance indicates that Ukraine was the source. That points to the Americans as the bridging agency between Ukraine and Syria. ..."
"... Another key factor is that at the time of the attacks, Russian military detected a US Poseidon surveillance aircraft in proximity over the Syrian coastal area. The Poseidon would have the ability to guide the drones to the precise location of the Russian bases. Although the plane is commonly thought of as part of the US Navy fleet, that does not preclude the CIA having their own Poseidon aircraft. ..."
"... It is also significant that Crimean lawmaker Ruslan Balbek has recently claimed that American Poseidon aircraft are being used to mount drone attacks by the US-backed Kiev regime. Balbek went further and said be believes the objective is to conduct a false flag attack on the minority Tatar community in Crimea. The "atrocity" would then be pinned on the Crimean authorities which the Western media would in turn amplify as condemnation of Russia. ..."
"... "Those aircraft were only camouflaged – I want to emphasize this – to look like handicraft production. In fact, it is quite obvious that there were elements of high-tech nature there," Putin said. ..."
"... For its part, the Pentagon has categorically denied US involvement in the drone incidents. At a press conference in Washington DC last week, Marine Corps Lieutenant General Kenneth F McKenzie Jr said: "The United States was not involved in any way with the drone attack on Russian bases at any time." ..."
"... If so then that points to the other candidate being the CIA. After all, as US-based political analyst Randy Martin commented for this column, it is the CIA which has been the main driver behind the entire American drone weapon and surveillance program around the world, from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Ukraine to a swathe of African countries. ..."
"... Given the routine clandestine and autonomous nature of the CIA, it is conceivable that neither the Pentagon nor even the Trump White House would be aware of all the agency's operations. The agency is apt to go rogue at any time, and the lack of knowledge among other branches of government in Washington affords the all-important foil of "plausible denial". ..."
"... Here is a speculative, but credible scenario: CIA operatives on the ground in Syria launch a swarm of armed drones on the Russian bases. The rickety design of the UAVs is aimed at giving the appearance of Turkish-backed militants in Idlib province. As Putin remarked, the objective was to scapegoat Turkey as complicit. If that worked, then relations between Moscow and Ankara, as well as Tehran, would become acutely strained. Washington is known to be unhappy with the rapprochement between Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. ..."
"... The hi-tech navigation equipment and explosives onboard the drones, plus the telltale presence of an American Poseidon surveillance aircraft in the skies above suggest the involvement of a US state agency – the CIA. ..."
The audacious multiple-drone attack on Russia's military bases in Syria is increasingly
looking like a false flag carried out by the American Central Intelligence Agency.
Sophisticated technology and a Ukrainian connection indicate that the swarm attack with 13
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) was not the work solely of Syrian anti-government
militants.
What's more the Russian government appears to have the incriminating
evidence on who sanctioned the drone attacks against the Russian air base at Hmeimim and
its naval port at Tartus on January 6.
The weapons failed to execute their deadly mission. Of the 13 drones used, seven were shot
down by Russian Pantsir S-1 air defenses and six were safely landed by Russian electronic
jamming technology. Those captured intact UAVs will have provided forensic information about
what agency authored the plot. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said coyly, "We know who did it", without as of yet
specifying the culprit.
Images of the UAVs released by the Russian Ministry of Defense showed rudimentary
construction from what appeared to be plywood.
However, the navigation technology and explosives onboard were sophisticated and
professionally made. This was no amateurish mission, as might have been expected if militants
alone had carried it out.
Furthermore, the drones were unlikely to have been made by Syrian militants. Russian
analysis of the explosive PENT substance
indicates that Ukraine was the source. That points to the Americans as the bridging agency
between Ukraine and Syria.
Another key factor is that at the time of the attacks, Russian military detected
a US Poseidon surveillance aircraft in proximity over the Syrian coastal area. The Poseidon
would have the ability to guide the drones to the precise location of the Russian bases.
Although the plane is commonly thought of as part of the US Navy fleet, that does not preclude
the CIA having their own Poseidon aircraft.
It is also significant that Crimean lawmaker Ruslan Balbek has recently claimed that
American Poseidon aircraft are being used to mount drone attacks by the US-backed Kiev regime.
Balbek went further and said be believes the objective is to conduct a false flag attack on the
minority Tatar community in Crimea. The "atrocity" would then be pinned on the Crimean
authorities which the Western media would in turn amplify as condemnation of Russia.
On the Syrian attack, Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week at a meeting with senior Russian media
executives that the culprit was not Turkey even though the drones were initiated from the
northern Syrian province of Idlib where Turkish military forces are associated with militant
groups.
"The attacks were provocations to destroy relations between Russia, Turkey and Iran. They
were provocateurs, but they were not Turks," said Putin.
Russia has yet to publicly attribute explicit blame for who was behind the drone operation.
But the Kremlin appears to be confident in its incriminating information.
"Those aircraft were only camouflaged – I want to emphasize this – to look like
handicraft production. In fact, it is quite obvious that there were elements of high-tech
nature there," Putin said.
The Russian president appeared to address the culprit with a cryptic remark: "You know that
I know," he said.
For its part, the Pentagon has categorically
denied US involvement in the drone incidents. At a press conference in Washington DC last
week, Marine Corps Lieutenant General Kenneth F McKenzie Jr said: "The United States was not
involved in any way with the drone attack on Russian bases at any time."
Another Pentagon spokesmen said accusations of American complicity were "ridiculous" and
"reckless".
The US military chiefs may be genuinely speaking honestly – as far as they know about
the circumstances. In other words, it is plausible that the Pentagon was not involved in the
drone attacks.
If so then that points to the other candidate being the CIA. After all, as US-based
political analyst Randy Martin commented for this column, it is the CIA which has been the main
driver behind the entire American drone weapon and surveillance program around the world, from
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Ukraine to a swathe of African countries.
Given the routine clandestine and autonomous nature of the CIA, it is conceivable that
neither the Pentagon nor even the Trump White House would be aware of all the agency's
operations. The agency is apt to go rogue at any time, and the lack of knowledge among other
branches of government in Washington affords the all-important foil of "plausible denial".
Here is a speculative, but credible scenario: CIA operatives on the ground in Syria launch a
swarm of armed drones on the Russian bases. The rickety design of the UAVs is aimed at giving
the appearance of Turkish-backed militants in Idlib province. As Putin remarked, the objective
was to scapegoat Turkey as complicit. If that worked, then relations between Moscow and Ankara,
as well as Tehran, would become acutely strained. Washington is known to be unhappy with the
rapprochement between Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The hi-tech navigation equipment and explosives onboard the drones, plus the telltale
presence of an American Poseidon surveillance aircraft in the skies above suggest the
involvement of a US state agency – the CIA.
Washington's agenda in Syria has nothing to do with defeating terrorism. It is to propagate
instability and chaos to undermine the Syrian government of President Assad and allied Russian
achievement in overcoming the US regime-change plot. Nothing would please the American agenda
more than for Russia, Turkey and Iran to bust up their detente in Syria.
The CIA has the expertise and technological capability to mount the sophisticated drone
attack on the Russian bases. It also has the motivation to carry it out to further its
regime-change intrigues. Who gains?
Still, there is another wild card in the pack, as analyst Randy Martin posits. He says: "The
swarm drone attack was probably the first time that such a tactic was ever used in military
records. It may have been carried out not only as a false flag to blame Turkey, but also as a
way for the operatives to test Russian air defenses and signals intelligence."
Martin added: "The danger is that we can expect more such attacks, perhaps with deadly
consequences, against Russian forces in Syria as well as against Crimea and separatists in
Eastern Ukraine."
The implications are grave. If it is confirmed that the CIA were behind the drone attack on
Russian bases in Syria, then that is tantamount to an act of war by the Americans –
regardless of it being actioned by a rogue agency.
That might explain why the Kremlin is holding its cards very close to its chest on the
matter. This is explosive.
"... General Flynn had warned Trump during the campaign before election and afterward that CIA briefers were lying to him. Flynn took over briefing Trump himself and that ended when they got Flynn out. ..."
In the WH it will be NSC adviser and chief lunatic McMaster. He will levitate with
enthusiasm for more war.
The briefings Trump gets are packed with lies and he has grown to trust them.
The entire foreign policy is so different from his stated goals and intentions that it is
clear he is fed fairy tales of success and bogus estimates of what the US can accomplish.
Last weeks Voltairnet.org piece by Thierry Meyssan indicated that Trump did not know what
his planners were doing.
"The president Trump had not been informed of the plan Votel-McGurk. The secretary of
Defense, James Mattis, confirmed to his men the instructions of the White House against the
jihadists. However Votel and McGurk are still in place." -- Thierry Meyssan
General Flynn had warned Trump during the campaign before election and afterward that
CIA briefers were lying to him. Flynn took over briefing Trump himself and that ended when
they got Flynn out.
We have a President misled who is told bogus results based on biased input data and
reports.
Meyssan has been crazy in love with Trump for a year, so for him to report this shows he
knows things are being setup for Trump to be trapped in Syria.
I am afraid, if one is to believe Mathis words, that the Syrian, Ukrainian and Korean potential confrontations will lead to
exchanges that will force us into wars on several theaters in the very near future.
As of today, Gen. Mathis exposing the sew Us Defense Strategy warned that: The US will counter any "threat to America's democracy
experiment" in the world, if necessary with military force, the Pentagon chief threatened.
He singled out Russia and China as "adversaries", a far cry form the "partners" designation used by Russia in designing the
USA. He vowed: the US will respond with lethal force.
So the stage is set for escalation of escalation in several theaters. How long will the bear be poked and the dragon provoked
before retaliation ensues?
I am afraid that war looks more and more certain in 2018.
@40 b... thanks for that... the place was getting out of hand.. you are becoming too popular..
@56 carl... it is an outrageous statement from mattis, any way you read it!
"The US will counter any threat to America's democracy experiment in the world..."
usa as country that gets to dictate its agenda anywhere in the world.. it would explain why they want to circumvent any international
body that they don't already control too, like the un.. america's democracy experiment is imposing the us$ as world currency under
the threat of their military.. it is already starting to fall apart on all accounts which explains mattis's anxiousness in representing
these same undemocratic structures and institutions he refers to as 'america's ''democracy'' experiment'... he needs to get a
gig in hollywood at comedy central.. he never found his true calling..
"We will modernize key capabilities," Mattis said. "Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense,
advanced autonomous systems and resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win." [Sputnik
News]
Just two quotes from 'Mad dog' Mattis which prove he needs to be put in an asylum.
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you
all".
"Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they're so sick of
the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."
He singled out Russia and China as "adversaries", a far cry form the "partners"
designation used by Russia in designing the USA. He vowed: the US will
respond with lethal force.
Actions speak louder than words. The US is scared of two things: 1) a military conflict where its troops get slaughtered wholesale,
and 2) going up against any army or regular military force it can't destroy from the air. Whatever happens in the near future
we can rest assured Uncle Scam won't be engaging in direct hostilities with China or Russia.
@63 "Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems and resilient
and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win."
Nice for the high-quality troops. Sounds like they should be totally risk-free. But I don't share Mad Dog's faith in technology.
Looks like an accident waiting to happen.
Mattis opens his mouth and reveals his level of ignorance when it comes to understanding the Outlaw US Empire's history--it's
certainly not a "democracy experiment," nor has it ever tried to install a democracy anywhere on the planet. I'd bet he's
just as ignorant when it comes to military history, too. He reminds me of the ignorant brute Sgt. Snorkel from the Beatle Bailey
comic strip. The so-called "new" "defense posture" is no more than a tidied-up version of the two that preceded it: What we say
goes; either you're with us or against us.
By way of rebuttal, I highly recommend reading
this interview of Hassan Nasrallah from 3 Jan 2018, particularly his remarks about differences in the quality of soldiers
from The Resistance versus those of the enemy--IDF, NATO, USA, Daesh--and why they exist.
Contrary to all the hype about the Empire being a new energy exporting colossus,
it needed to import LNG
to keep its East Coast dwellings warm, but the cargo seems to have found a better price elsewhere. Just how will it displace Russian
gas from the market when it can't provide enough domestic supply?
Meanwhile, Tillerson pulls an Albright
: "Signs of starvation and death in North Korea indicate that US diplomatic strategy works fine, says the secretary of state."
Is he being two-faced? You bet! From last year
: "We're not your enemy, we're not your threat..."
Ignorant, lying, immoral are just a few of the important behavioral traits of those leading faces of the Outlaw US Empire.
And my historical investigations prove such traits have been in the forefront since its inception. Guess we can thank its tutor,
the British Empire.
The US administration either is very smart in bluffing to temporarily reassure its panicking regional allies, Israel and Saudi
Arabia or it is living in the la-la land of an incompetence close to stupidity.
Do they really believe that the Russians will allow the USA to rob their victory in Syria over ISIS? Or that the Turks will
stay idle while the USA is building a Kurdish military entity on their border? Or that Iran and Syria will allow the partitioning
of Syria and the US illegal long term presence in the region?
The USA administration is posed for dramatic blowbacks and reshuffling of alliances in the region.Maybe that is why it is running
like a headless hen!
This will damage Trump with his base. Reducing the involvement of the United States military abroad was one of the more important
commitments he made to his base and now he has broken that commitment and quite a few of his base are disappointed. Even if it's
just a couple of hundred thousand of them, there goes the next presidential election for Trump and the Republicans. By forgetting
about Russia-gate, focusing on his foreign military involvements, and provided the Democratic candidate is not a Clinton, the
presidency is for there for taking by the Democrats. Having Tulsi Gabbard on the ticket would help.
The only reservation I have is if Trump is stiffing the generals in the White House and sometime in the future pulls the plug
on all those interventions then he'll remain in the White House for another four years.
Tillerson could have been speaking for Trump, or Obama, or Bush - under whose regime the Likudnik/neocons/Zionists were able to
foment a policy coup while using the OSP to concoct lies for Israel's long-desired war.
While there are generally multiple motives for entry into wars, only one is whitewashed. As Phil Giraldi put it:
""Why doesn't anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this
conference and we all know it's American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for
Netanyahu? Shouldn't we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?"
Here's where we are, as the same cabal cheerlead for war on Iran (Lebanon must be first) a you are either committed to stopping
the drive to war by all cognizable social and pitical forces, or you are not.
The time for letting cries of 'anti-Semite' preclude FAIR dis ussuon of the role of Jews and the Israel Lobby is over.
Those who censor this necessary component of analysis should be deemed confederates of the bankers, MIC, transnationals, and
Zionist Jews who have been driving wars for decades.
With millions dead, playtime is over. Those censoring the truth side with the warmongers.
"... To add a bit;" The ISIS /US seem to want to recreate the "Caliphate" (The southern bit of east Syria was supposed to form the village "basis" with Raqqua and Mosul etc the jam on the top. The SDF have released a number of ISIS "captives" recently. (Plus a whole lot that mysteriously became SDF at the moment they might have got hit by Russian aerial bombardments). ..."
"... Note that the Tanf US base is also training and arming ISIS and other rebels (and a seperate lot from the Rubakan refugee camp), with heavy weapons and anti-tank missiles among the arms. ..."
"... Note that the main suspects - stated to be the Pentagon/etc.; could also be Israel (who support Al Nusra in the area and who sent four planes to attack the SAA near Damascus at almost the same time); The mercenary "contracters" (CIA paid); or someone benefitting from a Saudi based supply line. ..."
"... However, as the USKurd area has to be able to have import export supply lines, we can expect to see more attacks on the Syrian/Iraqi positions in the southern corner (Al Qaim) from the Western side of the Euphrates (ie Tanf). ..."
"Reading through the article, US is now seems to be publicly stating it is in Syria to stay,
with Kurd's guarding the US/Turkish border, and retrained ISIS guarding the US/Syria, and
US/Iraq borders"
To add a bit;" The ISIS /US seem to want to recreate the "Caliphate" (The southern bit of
east Syria was supposed to form the village "basis" with Raqqua and Mosul etc the jam on the
top. The SDF have released a number of ISIS "captives" recently. (Plus a whole lot that
mysteriously became SDF at the moment they might have got hit by Russian aerial
bombardments).
Note that the Tanf US base is also training and arming ISIS and other rebels (and a seperate
lot from the Rubakan refugee camp), with heavy weapons and anti-tank missiles among the
arms.
There are supposed to be 14 US bases in Syria. (source; Al Jazeera or Qatar - not sure
which).
OK: that is the US side. Now the other side.
1) who would attack the US camps and proxies? Might this be Erdogan who is already making
noises about the Kurdish build-up on his borders? At least he will try to stop reinforcements
and oil exports via Turkish territory if this is the case. (If the Syrians attacked the US
camps directly then Trump and the Pentagon would leap with joy and use that as an excuse to
re-start the war in that area.)
2) The recent drone attack on the Russians. By saying they "knew" who it was and then
effectively "zapping" the "militants concerned", this is a very clear warning. Note that
the main suspects - stated to be the Pentagon/etc.; could also be Israel (who support Al
Nusra in the area and who sent four planes to attack the SAA near Damascus at almost the same
time); The mercenary "contracters" (CIA paid); or someone benefitting from a Saudi based
supply line. Whichever: The Russian "Zap", extremely accurate (!) and timed, can be seen
as a direct threat to the ORIGINATORS of the drones, who were the ones trying to get to the
minibus. Also explains why Putin has not directly mentioned who they were. No need, the
warning is made.
However, as the USKurd area has to be able to have import export supply lines, we can
expect to see more attacks on the Syrian/Iraqi positions in the southern corner (Al Qaim)
from the Western side of the Euphrates (ie Tanf).
The evolution of guided missiles has revolutionized warfare, obsoleting many military
systems such as aircraft carries (the Pentagon of course has not gotten the message) and
economizing threats.
Now come the cheap and virtually unstoppable drones, like in the recent attack on the
Russian air base. In the Washington area:
In the middle of a federal no-fly zone for drones, in some of the most sensitive and
restricted airspace in the United States, technicians working with Duggan recorded nearly 100
drone sightings over two months last summer. And that was just around two Army posts he
oversees. . . ."
Are they bad guys? Well, we don't know," Duggan said. "It's a technology that
can be used to attack us at home. Why? Because we are not as prepared as we need to be."
The evolution of guided missiles has revolutionized warfare, obsoleting many military
systems such as aircraft carries (the Pentagon of course has not gotten the message) and
economizing threats.
Now come the cheap and virtually unstoppable drones, like in the recent attack on the Russian
air base. In the Washington area:
In the middle of a federal no-fly zone for drones, in some of the most sensitive and
restricted airspace in the United States, technicians working with Duggan recorded nearly 100
drone sightings over two months last summer. And that was just around two Army posts he
oversees. . . ."Are they bad guys? Well, we don't know," Duggan said. "It's a technology that
can be used to attack us at home. Why? Because we are not as prepared as we need to be."
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 15, 2018 11:46:23 AM |
84
"... Note that the main suspects - stated to be the Pentagon/etc.; could also be Israel (who support Al Nusra in the area and who sent four planes to attack the SAA near Damascus at almost the same time); The mercenary "contracters" (CIA paid); or someone benefitting from a Saudi based supply line. ..."
Peter AU1 @2
"Reading through the article, US is now seems to be publicly stating it is in Syria to stay,
with Kurd's guarding the US/Turkish border, and retrained ISIS guarding the US/Syria, and
US/Iraq borders"
To add a bit;" The ISIS /US seem to want to recreate the "Caliphate" (The southern bit of
east Syria was supposed to form the village "basis" with Raqqua and Mosul etc the jam on the
top. The SDF have released a number of ISIS "captives" recently. (Plus a whole lot that
mysteriously became SDF at the moment they might have got hit by Russian aerial
bombardments).
Note that the Tanf US base is also training and arming ISIS and other rebels (and a seperate
lot from the Rubakan refugee camp), with heavy weapons and anti-tank missiles among the
arms.
There are supposed to be 14 US bases in Syria. (source; Al Jazeera or Qatar - not sure
which).
OK: that is the US side. Now the other side.
1) who would attack the US camps and proxies? Might this be Erdogan who is already making
noises about the Kurdish build-up on his borders? At least he will try to stop reinforcements
and oil exports via Turkish territory if this is the case. (If the Syrians attacked the US
camps directly then Trump and the Pentagon would leap with joy and use that as an excuse to
re-start the war in that area.)
2) The recent drone attack on the Russians. By saying they "knew" who it was and then
effectively "zapping" the "militants concerned", this is a very clear warning. Note that
the main suspects - stated to be the Pentagon/etc.; could also be Israel (who support Al
Nusra in the area and who sent four planes to attack the SAA near Damascus at almost the same
time); The mercenary "contracters" (CIA paid); or someone benefitting from a Saudi based
supply line. Whichever: The Russian "Zap", extremely accurate (!) and timed, can be seen
as a direct threat to the ORIGINATORS of the drones, who were the ones trying to get to the
minibus. Also explains why Putin has not directly mentioned who they were. No need, the
warning is made.
However, as the USKurd area has to be able to have import export supply lines, we can
expect to see more attacks on the Syrian/Iraqi positions in the southern corner (Al Qaim)
from the Western side of the Euphrates (ie Tanf).
US military not only admits to training Syrian militants, but says they do not care if they
choose to fight with terrorist organizations
January 15, 2018 – Fort Russ News – Paul Antonopoulos
DAMASCUS, Syria – The United States Central Command (CENTCOM), the United States
military branch responsible for North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, has admitted
to a journalist that they only train militants and does not care if they join internationally
recognized terrorist organizations afterwards.
Sharmine Narwani, an award winning journalist, asked a CENTCOM spokesperson what they
thought of US-trained "rebels" allying with Al-Qaeda.
In response to the question, the spokesperson responded with "We don't 'command and
control' these forces – we only 'train and enable' them Who they say they're allying
with, that's their business."
16h
1) who would attack the US camps and proxies? Might this be Erdogan who is already making
noises about the Kurdish build-up on his borders? At least he will try to stop reinforcements
and oil exports via Turkish territory if this is the case. (If the Syrians attacked the US
camps directly then Trump and the Pentagon would leap with joy and use that as an excuse to
re-start the war in that area.)
2) The recent drone attack on the Russians. By saying they "knew" who it was and then
effectively "zapping" the "militants concerned", this is a very clear warning. Note that the
main suspects - stated to be the Pentagon/etc.; could also be Israel (who support Al Nusra in
the area and who sent four planes to attack the SAA near Damascus at almost the same time); The
mercenary "contracters" (CIA paid); or someone benefitting from a Saudi based supply line.
Whichever: The Russian "Zap", extremely accurate (!) and timed, can be seen as a direct threat
to the ORIGINATORS of the drones, who were the ones trying to get to the minibus. Also explains
why Putin has not directly mentioned who they were. No need, the warning is made.
Moscow said it conducted a military operation to "eliminate" militants behind a
coordinated drone attack on its Syrian military bases.
Russia said more than a dozen drones were used in attacks.
Experts say more swarm-like drone attacks can be expected in the future, from terrorists
and others.
Russia 's defense ministry said
Friday it tracked down and killed the group of militants responsible for a recent coordinated
drone attack against one of its bases in Syria .
Experts said swarm-like attacks using weaponized drones is a growing threat and likely to
only get worse. They also said the possibility exists of terrorists using these drones in urban
areas against civilians.
"We're likely to see more attacks of larger scale going forward, potentially even larger
than this and in a variety of things -- air, land and sea," said Paul Scharre, director of the
Technology and National Security program at the Center for a New American Security, a
Washington think tank.
Earlier this month, militants in Syria launched a drone attack using more than a dozen
weaponized unmanned aerial vehicles in Russia's Hmeymim airbase as well as a navy supply base
in Tartus. Most of the drones were used on the attack against Hmeymim, located in western Syria
near the city of Latakia.
The Russian defense ministry claims
its air defenses detected 13 "small-size air targets" approaching its bases and repelled
the attack, shooting down seven drones with its anti-aircraft missile systems and taking
control of six others using electronic warfare. "The incident itself, while it wasn't
necessarily a spectacular attack by terrorist standards, it certainly portends a very dark
future," said Colin Clarke, a political scientist at the RAND think tank who specializes in
terrorism, insurgency and criminal networks.
"What it signals to me is a lot of the things that we talk about that we know are going to
be problems in the future may be problems now or a lot sooner than we thought," Clarke
said.
The RAND expert also said the U.S. and other nations have a lot of thinking to do about how
to deal with the weaponized drone technology, because it could be used not just on the
battlefield but potentially in urban areas by organized terrorist groups or other bad
actors.
Russia's defense ministry also released video of what it said was the targeted strike
against the militants. The ministry also has shown images of what appear to be the captured
drones and homemade drone bombs.
According to Moscow, it was able to track down the militants' launch site after its experts
"decoded the data recorded on the UAVs."
"U.S. bases are targets, and Russian bases are targets," said Olga Olicker, senior advisor
and director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, a Washington defense think tank.
"The key is not just finding a way to target these drones," said Scharre. "It's finding a
way to do it in a cost-effective way. If you shoot down a $1,000 drone with a $1 million
missile, you're losing every time you're doing it."
The coordinated drone attack follows a mortar shelling attack on New Year's Eve that
reportedly killed two Russian service members at the Hmeymim airbase. The Russian daily
Kommersant reported at least seven aircraft were destroyed , including fighter jets and a
transport aircraft, but Russia's state-run Tass news agency denied aircraft were destroyed.
Also, it comes less than a month after Russian President Vladimir Putin visited the Hmeymim base and boasted
about Russia's "successful intervention" against Islamic State terrorists in Syria's
conflict.
Islamic State militants previously used weaponized drones and showed video of its
bomb-dropping UAVs. The terrorist group has attacked U.S.-backed forces fighting ISIS with
drones and used them for surveillance purposes. ISIS also used booby-trapped drones to kill two
Kurdish fighters in 2016.
"We have seen nonstate actors use armed drones in the past, but this is a significant step
up in terms of the scale of attacks and just how many they were able to use simultaneously,"
said Scharre, who previously worked in the Pentagon and focused on unmanned and autonomous
systems and emerging weapons technology.
Meantime, Russia said it analyzed the construction of the drones and explosives of the
captured crafts, concluding that the militants in Syria must have had help from a
technologically advanced country. However, the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS has denied it
had a role.
At the same time, Russia implied that the explosive material used in the bomb may have come
from a Ukrainian
chemical plant.
"Some of the Russian accusations and insinuations that have been floating around I think are
meant to suggest that foreign intelligence helped provide targeting information, if not the
technology," said Olicker.
She said the technology itself appears to look like "off-the-shelf stuff" so the claims of
assistance from a technologically advanced country are "spurious." She added that Moscow's
"tendency to blame other state actors" for drone tech in the hands of militants appears
disingenuous.
Russia said it had "eliminated" militants on Friday who were behind a mortar attack that
killed two Russian soldiers on New Year's Eve.
Special forces from the Russian army had tracked the fighters to their base camp near the
border of Idlib, a statement said on Friday.
"The command of our troops in Syria carried out a special operation to find and eliminate
the group of militants that carried out the mortar attack on the Hmeimim base (western Syria),"
the Russian defence ministry said in a statement.
The ministry added that the fighters were "destroyed by a Krasnopol guided missile" as they
were leaving the base.
The Russians did not confirm which group the militants were affiliated to.
"A drone assembly and storage area was also discovered," the announcement said.
Ten drones equipped with explosives attacked Russia's airbase in Hmeimim in the early hours
of 6 January, the military previously reported. There were no casualties.
"... The bomblets are released by a solenoid that opens gaps in a sliding metal bar. The bomblets contain about 1 KG of PETN plus a string of epoxied ball bearings wrapped around the PETN explosive. ..."
"... The Russians claim that one of the drones carried a camera and had the ability to adjust the track of the other drones if needed. The drones themselves were guided by GPS and the flight path for each one was pre-programmed. ..."
"... What especially disturbs the Russian analysts – and on this point they are still unable to identify the source – is that the drones were accurately programmed not only to reach the bases, but to hit specific targets that could not be attacked using standard GPS-generated maps or rely on GPS for accurate targeting. The single camera-equipped drone was there to help adjust the final target, indicating a fairly sophisticated command and control capability, something that clearly impressed the Russian General Staff. The drones also were programmed with accurate intelligence that was harmonized with GPS maps. ..."
"... the accuracy of the drones is certainly the big issue and the Russians are almost certainly right that someone was helping the terrorists . ..."
ussia is seeking international assistance in its quest to determine the source of swarming drone attacks on two of its military
bases in Syria.
The twin strikes represent the first time swarming drones have been used by terrorists against hardened targets, and judging from
the excitement on the Russian side, they are clearly worried and upset. While denying that they lost any equipment in the strikes,
it is hard to explain otherwise the level of alarm in Russia's military.
The Russian General Staff held a
briefing in Moscow to show off some of the home-made drones that were used to attack
Hmeimim Air Base in Latakia, Syria and the important Russian naval base in
Tartus .
The drones themselves are simple. They use a small commercial gasoline two stroke engine that might be found in a weed whacker
or used to power a bicycle. Structurally the drones are made out of wooden spars and styrofoam "boards" that are tied into the wooden
structure with glue and plastic wrap.
The drone itself is launched from some sort of simple rail platform and guided by two piece of wood on the drone with cutouts
to protect the drone's aerodynamic quality. The drones carry either eight or ten bomblets, each stuffed with the explosive
PETN (pentaerythritol
tetranitrate), a very energetic explosive that has been favored by terrorists such as the shoe bomber,
Richard Reid. PETN needs to
be ignited by an explosive fuse, and the bomblets all have fuses that explode on contact.
The Russians have
pointed to the Ukraine as a possible source of PETN for the bombs. But there are many other sources and PETN and other explosives
such as RDX are widely available on the black market. No
doubt the Russians are trying to find out if the PETN in the drones has some chemical characteristic that would point to its source,
but it is unlikely even the Russians will be able to identify the Ukrainians as the source.
The bomblets are released by a solenoid that opens gaps in a sliding metal bar. The bomblets contain about 1 KG of PETN plus
a string of epoxied ball bearings wrapped around the PETN explosive.
It appears the mission of the swarming drones was three-fold:
it was to show the Russians that their bases are vulnerable to attack even if the terrorists are far off (the attack was launched
about 50 km away originating in Idlib according
to reports and the Russians have now destroyed a stockpile of drones there);
that the Russian aircraft and missiles were vulnerable to a drone strike;
and finally that the bomblets could be used to terrorize ground crews and military personnel on the Russian bases.
Most of the focus was on Hmeimim Air Base where 10 drones were used in a swarming attack; another three drones struck the Tartus
Naval Base.
The Russians claim that one of the drones carried a camera and had the ability to adjust the track of the other drones if
needed. The drones themselves were guided by GPS and the flight path for each
one was pre-programmed.
What especially disturbs the Russian analysts – and on this point they are still unable to identify the source – is that the
drones were accurately programmed not only to reach the bases, but to hit specific targets that could not be attacked using standard
GPS-generated maps or rely on GPS for accurate targeting. The single camera-equipped drone was there to help adjust the final target,
indicating a fairly sophisticated command and control capability, something that clearly impressed the Russian General Staff. The
drones also were programmed with accurate intelligence that was harmonized with GPS maps.
The Russians captured a number of the drones which they claim they were able to gain control over and crash land (the drones are
not capable of landing in the normal sense). They were able to read out the directional plots and see that the programming was very
accurate to locate targets. More than likely the targeting was aimed at parked Russian aircraft, since the bomblets would do very
little damage to buildings. It is less sure the targeting included Russian air defense missiles, as these are of little or no interest
to terrorist who don't have an air force.
Bottom line: the accuracy of the mapping means that the drones were supported by a well-established military organization
capable of spotting the targets and adjusting GPS maps to their exact location. Putting aside the fact that the drones may, or may
not have achieved their objectives (whether you believe the Russians shot down or controlled most of them and did not suffer any
losses, or alternatively the terrorist-leaks to the press where some seven Russian aircraft, including at least one Su-35 are claimed
to have been destroyed) the accuracy of the drones is certainly the big issue and the Russians are almost certainly right that
someone was helping the terrorists .
At first the Russians blamed the Turks. Next they blamed the Americans and pointed out that a US Navy Reconnaissance plane may
have been involved. More recently the Russians are accusing the Ukrainians.
What the Russians have not done is to blame the Iranians, ostensibly their ally in Syria. But the Iranians know the Russians are
under pressure for a settlement of the Syrian mess (maybe linked to some deal on Ukraine), and perhaps the biggest demand (from Saudi
Arabia, the United States and Israel) is for the Iranians and Hezbollah to leave Syria. Kicking the Russians hard may be the Iranian
way of sending a strong message to Putin that they are not leaving and that Putin needs "them" to protect vital Russian bases.
Whatever one thinks, the Russians are deeply troubled and afraid these kinds of attacks
will migrate to Russian territory in the hands of local terrorists (who also have been operating with ISIS in Syria). That's
why even the Russian Defense Ministry and General Staff are looking for international help to prevent swarm drone attacks.
Bannon backed candidate later lost. So much for this Bannon "success".
This idea of Trump playing 6 dimensional chess is a joke. It's the same explanation that was pushed for Obama disastrous neocon
foreign policy. Here is one very apt quote: "What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars
of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to
Afghanistan..." What 6-dimetional chess?
According to Occam razor principle the simplest explanation of Trump behaviour is probably the most correct. He does not control
foright policy, outsourcing it to "generals" and be does not pursue domestic policy of creating jobs as he promised his
electorate. In other words, both in foreign policy and domestic policy, he became a turncoat,
betraying his electorate, much like Obama. kind of Republican Obama.
And as time goes by, Trump looks more and more like Hillary II or Republican Obama. So he might have problems with the candidates he supports
in midterm elections. His isolationism, if it ever existed, is gone. Promise of jobs is gone. Detente with Russia is gone.
What's left?
Note the level disappointment of what used to be Trump base in this site comment section...
Notable quotes:
"... In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide ..."
"... The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted... ..."
"... These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. ..."
"... Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole. ..."
"... I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included. ..."
"... The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger. ..."
"... Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" ..."
"... A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office. ..."
"... When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population. ..."
"... Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope. ..."
"... In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless. ..."
"... I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports... ..."
"... Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that. ..."
"... What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan... ..."
"... It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America ..."
"... YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. ..."
Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy,
WIN in Dec!
In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and
alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide
The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to
recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92%
of the votes counted...
... ... ...
However, as Politco
reported this evening, President Donald Trump began distancing himself from a Luther Strange loss before ballots were even cast,
telling conservative activists Monday night the candidate he's backing in Alabama's GOP Senate primary was likely to lose ! and suggesting
he'd done everything he could do given the circumstances.
Trump told conservative activists who visited the White House for dinner on Monday night that he'd underestimated the political
power of Roy Moore, the firebrand populist and former judge who's supported by Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according
to three people who were there.
And Trump gave a less-than full-throated endorsement during Friday's rally.
While he called Strange "a real fighter and a real good guy," he also mused on stage about whether he made a "mistake" by backing
Strange and committed to campaign "like hell" for Moore if he won.
Trump was encouraged to pick Strange before the August primary by son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner as well as other aides,
White House officials said. He was never going to endorse Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who has at times opposed Trump's agenda,
and knew little about Moore, officials said.
... ... ...
Déjŕ view -> Sanity Bear •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
AIPAC HAS ALL BASES COVERED...MIGA !
On Sept. 11, the Alabama Daughters for Zion organization circulated a statement on Israel by Moore, which started by saying
the U.S. and Israel "share not only a common Biblical heritage but also institutions of representative government and respect
for religious freedom." He traced Israel's origin to God's promise to Abram and the 1948 creation of modern Israel as "a fulfillment
of the Scriptures that foretold the regathering of the Jewish people to Israel."
Moore's statement includes five policy positions, including support for U.S. military assistance to Israel, protecting Israel
from "Iranian aggression," opposing boycotts of Israel, supporting Israel at the United Nations, and supporting direct Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations without outside pressure. He added, "as long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority wrongly refuse to recognize Israel's
right to exist, such negotiations have scant chance of success."
While those views would give Moore common ground with much of the Jewish community regarding Israel, most of the state's Jewish
community has been at odds with Moore over church-state issues, such as his displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and
his outspoken stance against homosexuality, both of which led to him being ousted as chief justice.
moore misreads the Bible as most socalled christians do. they have been deceived, they have confused the Israel of God( those
who have been given belief in Christ) with israel of the flesh. They cant hear Christs own words, woe is unto them. they are living
in their own selfrighteousness, not good. they are going to have a big surprise for not following the Word of God instead following
the tradition of men.
They were warned over and over in the Bible but they cant hear.
I Claudius -> VinceFostersGhost •Sep 27, 2017 6:27 AM
Forgive? Maybe. Forget? NEVER!! He tried to sell "US" out on this one. We now need to focus on bringing "Moore" candidates
to the podium to run against the RINO's and take out McConnell and Ryan. It's time for Jared and Ivanka to go back to NYC so Jared
can shore up his family's failing empire. However, if his business acumen is as accurate as his political then it's no wonder
the family needed taxpayer funded visas to sell the property. Then on to ridding the White House of Gen Kelly and McMaster - two
holdover generals from the Obama administration - after Obama forced out the real ones.
Clashfan -> Mycroft Holmes IV •Sep 26, 2017 11:33 PM
Rump has hoodwinked his supoprt base and turned on them almost immediately. Some refuse to acknowledge this.
These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory.
It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. The
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) came to Bannon's defense and accused the ADL of a "character assassination" against Bannon.
The Wizard -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:12 PM
Trump should figure out the Deep State elites he has surrounded himself with, don't have control of the states Trump won. Trump
thought he had to negotiate with these guys and his ego got the best of him. Bannon was trying to convince him he should have
stayed the course and not give in.
~"American politics gets moore strange by the day..."~
Technically speaking OhRI, with Moore's win politics became less Strange, or "Strange less", or "Sans Luther", depending on
how one chose to phrase it [SMIRK]
Adullam -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar •Sep 26, 2017 11:05 PM
Trump needs to fire Jared! Some news outlets are saying that it was his son in law who advised him to back Strange. He has
to quit listening to those who want to destroy him or ... they will.
overbet -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:41 PM
Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole.
Juggernaut x2 -> overbet •Sep 26, 2017 10:07 PM
Trump better pull his head out of his ass and quit being a wishy-washy populist on BS like Iran- the farther right he goes
the greater his odds of reelection because he has pissed off a lot of the far-righters that put him in- getting rid of Kushner,
Cohn and his daughter and negotiating w/Assad and distancing us from Israhell would be a huge help.
The whole Russiagate ploy was a diversion from (((them)))
NoDebt -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM
I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to
kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's
face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included.
Oldwood -> NoDebt •Sep 26, 2017 10:08 PM
I think it was a setup.
Bannon would not oppose Trump that directly unless there was a wink and a nod involved.
Trump is still walking a tightrope, trying to appease his base AND keep as many establishment republicans at his side (even
for only optics). By Trump supporting Strange while knowing he was an underdog AND completely apposed by Bannon/his base he was
able to LOOK like he was supporting the establishment, while NOT really. Trump seldom backs losers which makes me think it was
deliberate. Strange never made sense anyway.
But what do I know?
Urahara -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 12:20 AM
Bannon is hardcore Isreal first. Why are you supporting the zionist? It's an obvious play.
general ambivalent -> Urahara •Sep 27, 2017 2:23 AM
People are desperate to rationalise their failure into a victory. They cannot give up on Hope so they have to use hyperbole
in everything and pretend this is all leading to something great in 2020 or 2024.
None of these fools learned a damn thing and they are desperate to make the same mistake again. The swamp is full, so full
that it has breached the banks and taken over all of society. Trump is a swamp monster, and you simply cannot reform the swamp
when both sides are monsters. In other words, the inside is not an option, so it has to be done the hard way. But people would
prefer to keep voting in the swamp.
Al Gophilia -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 3:58 AM
Bannon as president would really have those swamp creatures squirming. There wouldn't be this Trump crap about surrounding
himself with likeminded friends, such as Goldman Sachs turnstile workers and his good pals in the MIC.
Don't tell me he didn't choose them because if he didn't, then they were placed. That means he doesn't have the clout he pretends
to have or control of the agenda that the people asked him to deliver. His backing of Stange is telling.
Bobbyrib -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 27, 2017 5:38 AM
He will not fire Kushner or Ivanka who have become part of the swamp. I'm so sick of these 'Trump is a genius and planned this
all along.'
To me Trump is a Mr. Bean type character that has been very fortunate and just goes with the flow. He has nearly no diplomacy,
or strategic skills.
NoWayJose •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM
Dear President Trump - if you like your job, listen to these voters. Borders, Walls, limited immigrants (including all those
that Ryan and McConnell are sneaking through under your very nose), trade agreements to keep American jobs, and respect for our
flag, our country, and the unborn!
I had hope for Trump, but as someone who reads ZH often, and does not suffer from amnesia (like much of America), I knew he
was way too good to be true.
We all know his back tracking, his flip flops...and while the media and many paid bloggers like to spin it as "not his fault",
it actually is.
His sending DACA to Congress was the last straw. Obama enacted DACA with a stroke of his pen, but Trump "needed to send it
to Congress so they could "get it right". The only thing Congress does with immigration is try and get amnesty passed.
Of course while Trump sends DACA to Congress, he does not mind using the military without Congress, which he actually should
do.
Why is it when it's something American's want, it has to go through the "correct channels", but when its something the Zionists
want, he does it with the wave of his pen? We saw the same bull shit games with Obama...
Dilluminati •Sep 26, 2017 11:02 PM
Anybody surprised by this is pretending the civility at the workplace isn't masking anger at corporate America and Government.
I'll go in and put in the 8 hours, I'm an adult that is part of the job. However I'm actually fed up with allot of the stupid
shit and want the establishment to work, problem is that we are witnessing failed nations, failed schools, failed healthcare,
even failed employment contracts, conditions, and wages.
The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well
imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger.
You haven't seen anything yet in Catalonia/Spain etc, Brexit, or so..
This is what failure looks like: That moment the Romanovs and Louis XVI looked around the room seeking an understanding eye,
there was none.
Pascal1967 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
Dear Trump:
Quit listening to your moron son-in-law, swamp creature, Goldman Sachs douchebag son-in-law Kushner. HE SUCKS!! If you truly
had BALLS, you would FIRE his fucking ass. HE is The Swamp, He Is Nepotism! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE HIM.
MAGA! LISTEN TO BANNON, DONALD.
DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!
ROY MOORE, 100%!!!!
You lost, Trump ... get your shit together before it is too late!
ElTerco •Sep 26, 2017 11:28 PM
Bannon was always the smarts behind the whole operation. Now we are just left with a complete idiot in office.
Also, unlike Trump, Bannon actually gives a shit about what happens to the American people rather than the American tax system.
At the end of the day, all Trump really cares about is himself.
samsara •Sep 26, 2017 11:25 PM
I think most people get it backwards about Trump and the Deplorables.
I believed in pulling troops a from all the war zones and Trump said he felt the same
I believed in Legal immigration, sending people back if here illegal especially if involved in crime, Trump said he felt the
same.
I believed in America first in negotiating treaties, Trump said he felt the same.
I didn't 'vote' for Trump per se, he was the proxy.
We didn't leave Him, He left us.
BarnacleBill •Sep 26, 2017 11:31 PM
Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World.
Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" It's high time he turned back to the
job he promised to do, and drain that swamp.
napper •Sep 26, 2017 11:47 PM
A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just
turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment
puppet once the braindead voters put him in office.
America is doomed from top (the swarm) to bottom (the brainless voters).
Sid Davis •Sep 27, 2017 1:40 AM
When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment
rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies,
but not for the US population.
Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence
that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope.
In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson.
It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators
are worthless.
nevertheless -> pfwed •Sep 27, 2017 7:33 AM
I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the
media reports...
LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 2:56 AM
Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"-
(great leaders) do not do that.
nevertheless -> LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 7:16 AM
What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis,
killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan...
But most treasonous of all was his sending DACA to "get it right", really? Congress has only one goal with immigration, amnesty,
and Chump knows dam well they will send him legislation that will clearly or covertly grant amnesty for millions and millions
of illegals, dressed up as "security".
Obama enacted DACA with the stroke of a pen, and while TRUMP promised to end it, he did NOT. Why is it when it's something
Americans want, it has to be "Constitutional", but when it comes form his banker pals, like starting a war, he can do that unilaterally.
It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing
display of disloyalty to America, and loyalty to Zionism.
Trump should always have been seen as a likely Zionist shill. He comes form Jew York City, owes everything he is to Zionist
Jewish bankers, is a self proclaimed Zionist...
YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER.
Either Zero Hedge is over run with Zionist hasbara, giving cover to their boy Chump, or Americans on the "right" have become
as gullible as those who supported Obama on the "left".
Israeli jets and ground-to-ground missile attacks on targets in the outskirts of Damascus
are a mark of Israel's heightened concern as President Bashar al-Assad comes close to winning
the civil war in Syria. Israel's security cabinet has held meetings several times in recent
days to discuss how it should respond to the "day-after" the war as Syria returns to Mr Assad's
control and to Iran's expanded influence in Syria according to Israeli television reports.
... ... ...
Israel has received vociferous backing from President Trump and the US but the Israelis must
wonder – along with the rest of the world – how much Mr Trump's supportive tweets
are really worth. Even his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is not an
unalloyed gain for Israel since it changes nothing much on the ground, but it has put the
Israeli-Palestinian issue back at the top of the political agenda in the Middle East to a
degree not seen since 9/11 and the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Israeli air strikes are not necessarily a precursor to a wider military conflict, but
they do show that Israel believes it can no longer stay on the margins of the Syrian war. As
the conflict comes to an end that is bound to be messy, Israel wants to be a leading player in
shaping its final outcome.
Also notable in terms of the potential for US involvement, which also affirms that Russian
suspicions are not mere "paranoia," is that one of the high level planners behind CIA
operations in Syria, former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell, declared publicly that "we need
to make the Russians pay the price" in Syria by "covertly" killing them via proxies.
Though as the
Daily
Beast notes
anti-government insurgents in Syria have long had access to black market drones
sold through social media, Russia has consistently pointed to the high tech navigational and
weapons components added. An earlier Russian Defense Ministry
statement
said the attack needed a "high-level engineer" and that "not every country is
able to get sharp coordinates using space intelligence data" while also citing the presence of
"foreign detonating fuses". The statement further indicated that, " Russian specialists are
determining supply channels, through which terrorists had received the technologies and
devices, as well as examining type and origin of explosive compounds used in the IEDs."
And given Putin's words on Thursday, it sounds like Russia believes it has proof of the
outside sponsor of the operation - though it's unclear why it is not forthcoming with the
evidence as it has been in some past incidents. It could be that Russian defense doesn't
actually have the level of proof needed to convince an international audience, or the more
likely scenario perhaps involves the delicacy of Russia's current attempts to negotiate a
settlement to the war and
continued military withdrawal of its forces
.
Regarding these negotiations, Putin said on Thursday of the recent attacks on its Syrian
bases, "Those were provocations aimed at disrupting the earlier agreements, in the first place
. Secondly, it was about our relations with our partners - Turkey and Iran. It was also an
attempt to destroy those relations." Last November a
trilateral
Syria deal was reached
between Russia, Turkey, and Iran in Sochi, Russia over the future of
Syria which emphasized winding down the war while keeping the country intact and creating a
humanitarian and diplomatic solution, and also included planned Moscow-sponsored talks between
the Syrian government and recognized opposition.
The US and other Western powers were notably excluded from the talks, which many analysts
now see as signifying that Putin is in the driver's seat when it comes to setting the final
terms for winding down the war. Russia suspects that the latest attacks on Khmeimim are
provocations designed to introduce suspicion among signatories to the deal , especially those
elements of the Syrian opposition set to meet for continued Russian sponsored negotiations
at the end of January
.
Interestingly, the Russian Foreign Ministry actually previously warned of "staged
provocations " aimed at doing just this in the days prior to the first January mortar attack on
Khmeimim. As
we reported at the time
of a prior missile attack on the base, FM spokesperson Maria
Zakharova warned at a December 28 press conference that ongoing attacks were " another link in
the chain of ongoing and, perhaps, staged provocations involving terrorists and extremists from
the Syrian opposition aimed at disrupting the positive trends in the development of the
situation in Syria and, in particular, at creating obstacles to convening and holding the
Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi on January 29-30."
Also notable in terms of the potential for US involvement, which also affirms that Russian
suspicions are not mere "paranoia," is that one of the high level planners behind CIA
operations in Syria, former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell, declared publicly that "we need
to make the Russians pay the price" in Syria by "covertly" killing them via proxies.
Morell : We need to make the Iranians pay the price in Syria; we need to make the Russians
pay the price.
Rose: We make them pay the price by killing Russians and killing Iranians?
Morell : Yes. Covertly. You don't tell the world about it. You don't stand at the Pentagon
and say we did this. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran. I want to go after
those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to scare Assad. I want to go
after his presidential car. I want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night. I want to
destroy his presidential aircraft. I want to destroy his presidential helicopters. I want to
make him think we are coming after him.
With such brazen and public past admissions by US intelligence officials it is clear that no
scenario should be taken off the table regarding what happened with these recent
technologically advanced attacks on Russian assets in Syria. This could indeed very likely be
the United States or a regional state actor making Russians "pay the price" for being there
.
Though both attacks would appear to be merely the work of Islamist rebel factions occupying nearby Idlib, multiple
extraordinary factors led the Russian Ministry of Defense to immediately state that the perpetrators must have had outside state
sponsorship. First there was - as the Russian Ministry of Defense mentioned in an early media statement - "strange coincidences"
surrounding the terrorist attack: these included a US spy plane spotted in the area, namely a US Navy's Boeing P-8 Poseidon
reconnaissance aircraft on patrol between the Khmeimim airbase and Tartus naval base in Syria during the time of the attack.
Secondly, the airbase lies deep within Syrian regime territory in what is among the most secure areas in all of Syria, which
also underscores the need for advanced satellite and navigational coordination from a state actors.
The Russian military
claims the drones came from the village of Muwazarra in Idlib, around 50 miles away, which makes Ahrar Al Sham or Hay'at Tahrir
Al Sham the immediate culprit. Both groups, though blacklisted as terror organizations by the Pentagon, have received direct and
indirect assistance by the CIA and allied intelligence services at various points over the course of the war, especially during
the 2015 campaign to wrest Idlib city from the control of the Syrian government.
Third, the Russian military in its examination of the recovered drones found high tech components
well beyond what initially appeared to be rebel-made improvised devices manufactured locally. Putin
went so far as to say the drones and explosives were
purposefully made to appear primitive
and homemade in order to conceal the advanced technology they were outfitted with
. On
Thursday he said, "As for these attacks, they were undoubtedly prepared well. We know when and where
these unmanned vehicles were handed over [to the attackers], and how many of them there were.
These aerial vehicles were disguised - I would like to stress that - as homemade. But it is obvious
that some high-tech equipment was used."
Russia has yet to reveal the identity of those responsible, but has strongly hinted at the United
States or a regional US ally, which elicited a Pentagon response this week
with a spokesperson saying
the suggestion is "
without any basis in fact and is utterly
irresponsible."
The UK Daily Mail featured detailed Russian defense photographs of the recovered drones, which
were noted to be "immune to jamming technology" and
summarized the advanced capabilities as follows
:
"Jam-resistant terrorist drones" could not have been made without foreign help, Russia says
They carried sophisticated software and precision-guided weaponry
The explosives they carried were 'stuffed with ball bearings'
Also notable in terms of the potential for US involvement, which also affirms that Russian suspicions
are not mere "paranoia," is that one of the high level planners behind CIA operations in Syria,
former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell, declared publicly that "we need to make the Russians pay
the price" in Syria by "covertly" killing them via proxies.
Morell
: We need to make the Iranians pay the price in Syria; we need to make
the Russians pay the price.
Rose:
We make them pay the price
by killing Russians and killing
Iranians?
Morell
:
Yes. Covertly.
You don't tell the world about it. You
don't stand at the Pentagon and say we did this. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and
Tehran. I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to
scare Assad. I want to go after his presidential car. I want to bomb his offices in the middle of
the night. I want to destroy his presidential aircraft. I want to destroy his presidential
helicopters. I want to make him think we are coming after him.
With such brazen and public past admissions by US intelligence officials it is clear that no
scenario should be taken off the table regarding what happened with these recent technologically
advanced attacks on Russian assets in Syria. This could indeed very likely be the United States or a
regional state actor
making Russians "pay the price" for being there
.
Interesting
article on moon of alabama
about
a new offensive in SE Idlib region against SAA
forces by "moderate" rebels supplied/assisted
by Turkey entitled: '
Syria - Erdogan
(Again) Switches Sides - Delivers New Supplies
For Terrorist Attacks'
Societal collapse or world war, societal
collapse or world war....hmmmm. What do you
think single mother, government dependent,
pussy hat wearing, terrorist inviting,
uninformed voter?
"
Morell
:
Yes.
Covertly.
You don't tell the
world about it. You don't stand at the
Pentagon and say
we did this
.
But you make sure they know it in
Moscow and Tehran. I want to go after
those things that Assad sees as his
personal power base. I want to scare
Assad. I want to go after his
presidential car.
I want to
bomb
his offices in the
middle of the night.
I want to
destroy
his presidential
aircraft.
I want to destroy
his presidential helicopters. I want
to make him think
we are
coming after him
."
...spoken like a true psychopath that
he and others like him who hold/held
high-ranking positions think about day-in
and day-out ...
... or this:
Yoav
Galant, a former general said
:
"...
time has come to
assassinate
Assad
...
And
when
we finish
with the
tail[Syria]
of the
serpent,
we will reach
the head of the serpent, which can be
found in Tehran, and
we will deal
with it, too
"
... or then
SOS Hillary Clinton, as provided
by Wikileaks
, stated: "
The
best way to help Israel deal with Iran's
growing nuclear capability is to help the
people of Syria
overthrow the
regime
of Bashar Assad
...
Iran's nuclear program and Syria's
civil war may seem unconnected, but they
are.
For Israeli leaders, the
real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is
not the prospect of an insane Iranian
leader launching an unprovoked Iranian
nuclear attack on Israel that would lead
to the annihilation of both countries.
What Israeli military leaders really
worry about
-- but cannot talk
about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly
.
An Iranian nuclear weapons capability
would not only end that nuclear monopoly
but could also prompt other adversaries,
like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go
nuclear as well. The result would
be a precarious nuclear balance in which
Israel could not respond to provocations
with conventional military strikes
on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
"
Why is it that top US officials sound
almost exactly like their Israeli
counterparts...who speaks for whom
(rhetorical question)???
In a tale of forbidden love,
secret princes, madness and
murder that would be difficult
to believe as the plot of an
airport paperback, the CIA has
declassified documents showing
that King Hussein of Jordan had
a child out of wedlock with an
American Jewish actress - who
was later killed by their own
lovechild.
You're absolutely correct, they're
scared. Trump gave them what was not
in his power to give, Jerusalem. They
couldn't take possession because the
entire world, less the brigands, said
hell no!
The wound is a fatal one
for the isreali regime, just a matter
of time now, all their plans and
actions, achieve the opposite of their
desires, from Iraq, to Syria, to Iran.
The world is woke!
The article is bullshit. The APCs could have
been supplied by the Turks. They could have
been supplied by Gulenist/CIA agents in
Turkey. They could have been captured by
US-ISIS forces from the Turkish forces in
Syria. They could have been captured from
the Turks by US-Kurd forces and supplied to
US-ISIS forces. Transport vehicles are
strategically irrelevant. Now if the
floodgates for ISIS reinforcements was
opened, that would be strategically
significant. By one of those amazing
coinkydinks, the US-Kurds released hundreds
of US-ISIS 'prisoners' shortly before the
attacks. I bet they didn't go on R&R after
release.
Putin has confirmed the Turks
were not involved in the swarm attack and it
was intended to drive a wedge between Turkey
and Russia. The supply of Turkish vehicles
ditto. Qui bono?
I do not believe the article I
referenced insinuated that those vehicles
came from Dubai (if that is what you are
alleging) or what was the originating
source, only that it was a
variant
of one that is known to
produce "Special Purpose Vehicles" in
Dubai -- but that Turkey was used as a
conduit to supply weapons (bolded text my
own):
"The Syrian army captured one
of the the new armored personal
carriers. The various pictures and
videos
show a variant
of the
Armored
Panthera F9
produced by the
company
Minerva
SPV
which resides in Dubai, United
Arab Emirates."
Turkey (again)
delivered hundreds of tons of weapons
to the jihadis.
New supplies
of TOW anti-tank missiles, distributed
exclusively by the CIA, have also been
seen. (Turkey is also again supplying
jihadists in Libya. The Greek navy
just
caught
a ship
going from Turkey to Libya
with 29 containers full of bomb
precursors, detonators and other bomb
making parts.)
Ali Özkök @Ozkok_ -
10:06
AM - 11 Jan 2018
#Turkey supplied Feylaq
el-Sham militia with at least six
armoured vehicles
.
This is a major indicator that Turkey
also supports the massive counter
offensive of rebels and islamists
in #Idlib and #Hama
against
Syrian army and allies
! I
guess we will see soon some ATGM
strikes.
The "moderate" rebel forces where
trying to stop the breakthrough by SAA to
split their, the "moderate" rebels',
pocket in Idlib region into two, thus
encircling the eastern portion completely
(look at the map provided in the
aforementioned article). Is it not
interesting that this new
counteroffensive by the "moderate" rebels
was aimed -- coincidentally to be sure /s
-- at a breakthrough to the ISIS enclave
that seems trapped in the eastern pocket
(again see the map provided in the
aforementioned article)?
The other thing to keep an eye on was
this (bolded text my own):
"The "rebels" in Idleb also
set
up a website
with 150
pre-scripted tweets about killed
children and barrel bombed hospitals
which their fans can distribute at
will
.
In the next few
days we will hear news of the
destruction of at least eight "last
hospitals"
in the Idleb
governorate ..."
Are your suggesting that the UAE is behind it?
Intriguing! In the delicate dance between the
members of the love-hate menage a trois - Srael, Russia... and their jointly if somewhat
chaotically managed puppet state Turkey...
the strings sometimes pull sharply this way, then
sharply the other. Currently, the dynamic has shifted
a bit to the Srael side, and the groupings of
jihadist factions controlled by Ankara have been busy
making signals of displeasure about the thwarting of
the caliphs plans for further intrusions in north
Syria/Rojava.
As a result... the drone drama. There is very
little mystery about the source of the weaponry. It
has doubtless been lab-tested and identified. Turkish
military manufacturers have been busy turning out..
and seeking markets for... their new array of drones
with the latest military applications. Their recent
attendance at the s e Asian trade fair in Thailand
with all their various arsenals on display was a sign
of their eagerness to impress cash-rich clients. But
the proof is in the pudding - as always - and
therefore 'field demonstrations' the order of the
day!
Masters of the tight-lipped \delayed response/kind
of diplomatic warfare, the Russkies have observed
this sally from their erstwhile 'partners' in tel
aviv with the same discipline as was applied when
their ambassador was offed in Turkey in a previous
episode of tit for tat intrigue which the mediaz were
unable to wrap their noggins round. And as always...
foolish fanbouys will
rush in ...
on cue... with the usual blustery bullshit
bout "CIAs" and other creatures of the night...
hoping to ward off further erosion of a fake news
storyline the wheels of which have been falling off
to no end lately!
While the U.S. seems to have
given up on regime change in Syria it is still trying to sabotage the progress of the
Syrian government and its allies.
The recent drone attack on the Russian base Khmeimim in Latakia is just one example.
Thirteen sophisticated armed drones with a reach of some 100 kilometers attacked the base at
the same time as a U.S. electronic warfare plane was circling off the
Syrian coast . The attack was unsuccessful. Russia has sophisticated electronic warfare
means and hijacked the command over six of the drones. The other seven were taken down by
Russian air defenses.
To claim, as the U.S. does, that ISIS or some "rebels" did this is nonsense. ISIS has made
short range weaponized drones flown by remote control in line of sight mode. This attack was by
autonomous drones using GPS and barometric sensors to find their way to their targets. This is
qualitatively on a whole new level. I doubt that Russia will let this go unanswered. Look out
for some "mishap" that may soon hit some U.S. troops or interests abroad.
Three significant military operations took place over the last few weeks.
Minor point: it is surprising just how sophisticated hobbyist drones can be. You can buy
modules for GPS and barometric pressure and multi-axis gyros etc. for dirt cheap. Of course,
these modules will not be civilian grade and will not be hardened against jamming etc., which
certainly sounds like what happened. Civilian GPS in particular can be easily over-ridden by
external jamming. Granted that military systems are likely more robust, I am sure that the US
is very interested in Russian anti-GPS jamming systems, given the heavy reliance of the US on
GPS technology.
well, what U really mean in your comment up here,TG?
the US has deep interest in russian anti GPS systems but seemingly the 13 or so devices used
last week to hit Russian bases were cheap hobbyist, shelf type stuff?
Or have we misinterpreted your view?
The US/YPG forces hold mostly-desert eastern Syria, east of the Euphrates (yellow portion of
upper map), including the oil fields in the south of that area, but they will be completely
land-locked by Turkey, Iraq and Syria. The US (after suffering some pay-back casualties
perhaps) will have to admit defeat and leave.
ZeroHedge quoting the Pentagon statement: "The Pentagon countered that while the US was
"concerned" over the incident, Pentagon spokesman Maj. Adrian Rankin-Galloway, however,
claimed that "those devices and technologies can easily be obtained in the open market." He
later also told Sputnik that the US already saw what it called "this type of commercial UAV
[unmanned aerial vehicle] technology" being used in Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS)
missions."
Interesting. How does HE know what technologies were used in the drones? Sounds like the
US protest was a Freudian slip. And quite the coincidence that the operation was being
monitored by a Poseidon. Was a warning radioed to the Russians that what appeared to be a
swarm of drones was detected incoming? The attacks by various mediums over the last few days
on the Russian airbase clearly shows defenses are being tested, and apparently tested in some
scientific detail by having spy plane monitors. May be for planning of future attacks, may be
because the US has determined it is losing and wants to gain as much intel as possible now,
in case they have to bug out soon and lose the ability to test current tech Russian defenses.
Where else in the world could they do so without starting a top-level conflict? One wonders
if the drones were all configured differently, in an attempt to pin down up to what level of
shielding Russian tech could take over a drone, and beyond which they would have to be shot
down?
The principal US objective, using ISIS, YPG and others, has been to break the "Shia crescent"
from Tehran to Beirut, which the US stupidly created with its Operation Iraqi Freedom. That
is a failure even with the US/YPG in eastern Syria, as seen
here .
So chalk up another military failure for the Pentagon and its clueless generals.
>Why is the US is contesting the Russian bases in Syria? The point is, these Russian
bases are located in Latakia province along the Mediterranean coast. And the US military
objective is to gain access to the Mediterranean coast for the Kurdistan enclave it is
creating in Syria without which the enclave will be landlocked and dependent critically on
supply routes via Turkey or Iraq, apart from being economically unviable (although it is an
oil-rich region of Syria.)
> The Saudi establishment daily Asharq Al-Awsat reported on Monday that the Trump
administration is planning to grant diplomatic recognition to the Kurdistan enclave in
northern Syria (which is of the size of Lebanon.) The idea is to create a permanent
foothold for the US and Israel in a strategic, economically self-sufficient independent
Kurdistan where the borders of Turkey, Iraq and Syria meet, and which may eventually reach
Iran's western border with northern Iraq.
> But the US-Israeli strategy will remain a pipedream if the Kurdistsn is land-locked
and continues to be challenged by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Hence the criticality of
creating an access route to the Mediterranean via Latakia province.. . . here
I'm not surprised by the use of drones by the US. IMO Syria is THE testbed for new military
technology, as the US can probe the efficacy of Russian S-400 systems. It was just a matter
of time before swarming technologies were being tested in combat.
As stated in other news sources, the attack would require a sophisticated control center
to manage the attack, which would explain the presence of a US spy plane lurking nearby.
The strategy of launching said drones from Turkish controlled areas adds the additional
benefit of attempting to drive a wedge between the Turks and Russians.
The downside of testing this new technology is that the result will be escalatory with a
green light given to the Russians to test their drone technology on American assets. This is
after all a war, cold to hot, irrespective to what the diplomats may say.
IMO the entire affair is particularly tragic, as the constant drought besetting the entire
Middle East for the last 5 to 9 years is just a prelude to the climatic challenges awaiting
us all. The the situation will become all the more grim as water becomes more scarce, and
temperatures soar, due to a runaway climate beginning to rear its ugly head with the melting
of the Arctic. While the US lost half of its wheat crop in a matter of weeks to a flash
drought last summer, Russia has become the largest exporter of wheat, due to our 2014
sanctions. I wonder what the West will do when it starts getting hungry and it has alienated
a possibly great food supplier.
It's grim pleasure, and sort of entertaining fun, to sit among the armchair "warfighters" and
geopoiliticians with all our varying degrees of expertise and knowledge. To sit and watch
"events," and parse and digest and predict and prognosticate about all the complex goings-on
in the subdivision of global forever war that we call "Syria." Which we cognoscenti tend to
refer to as a reification with substance (yet lacking the kind of detail that can give a
possibly more accurate and possibly predictive notion of 'What's shakin.' )The same
simplification via hypostatization that we also do in talking and thinking about all the
other players and moving parts of the Game, I guess necessarily, given the mode and scope of
the blog form of communication.
I imagine, probably inaccurately, that the more involved players, with their white papers
and intelligence estimates and assessments and access to the Global Network-Centric
Interoperable Battlespace thingie and all the inputs from intel and lobbyists and courtiers
from all the players fiscally interested in movements and outcomes, might have better and
more accurate and "grainier" views and understandings of the state of play, along with a more
complete review of the bidding. And some kind of organizing principle in mind, for what they
have done, what they are doing, and hope and plan to do in future. Of course if one looks
around, one finds input and thinking that looks a lot like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269463/Afghanistan-PowerPoint-slide-Generals-left-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html
What are, and what "ought to be," the organizing principles best to be pursued and
actuated by us nearly 8 billion humans? All well and good to be a little comforted that the
Syrian national army (with its backers and allies) is maybe kicking some brigands and thieves
and war-banders out of areas they have "taken over."' Takeovers done with the encouragement
and assistance of other backers and allies. Or, given the Byzantine and Machiavellian and
totally corrupt and cynical nature of the Game, maybe some of the same people "backing" and
"supplying" and "training" the "pro-Government forces," who the heck knows?) All those
"take-overs" accomplished with more ,or less, cooperation and resistance from people living
there.
So discourse about the Game and its play is structured around naming and attempting to
analyze and put in context and rationalize and excoriate actions and structures of all the
mostly mythical unitary characters, "monads" if you will, like "Syria" and "the US" and
"Russia" and "Venezuela" and "Nigeria" and "China" and so forth, in this ongoing set of
complex activities, shifting interests and alliances and supply chains and weapons
development and murder. We, who spend time looking down this set of silos and postholes, try
to tease out the threads of continuity and organization that we are just SURE must tie
together, or at least explain and offer hints how to manipulate and ameliorate, all this
activity and plotting and counter-counter-counter-inititaives and -operations. Kind of like
the authors of a deep scholarly law review articles, who clam to find rules of decision and
hence "rule of law" in the variegated decisions of our Supreme and lower courts.
Do the people running all the bits of this have any kind of organizing principle(s)
directing their so very energetic daily workload and planning sessions? Another blog owner,
who ought to know, said in response to that question, 'of course not, it's as it has always
been and will be, it's just individuals and groups pursuing immediate interests.' He, of
course, spent his career working for, and now spends his days speaking for, an organizing
principle, maybe styled 'reformed and more successful hegemony" in the current parlance. And
he is only one of millions who are thus involved in the Game., pulling on one of the many
ropes attached to the Jaganath all are worshiping and augmenting.
So, many of us look for rationales and structures, and signs of hope that this is not just
the end-game for our species, yet we sit in among people who are also (if only we knew, in
this anonymous internet space where new forms of contention and deception and "persuasion")
playing smaller or larger roles, as part of still other "operations and initiatives." And try
to sort out "true facts" from the sly manipulations and deceptions and distractions of those
ladling out the flood of Bernays Sauce we are all poaching in.
Too bad there is no such thing as a Prime Directive, an organizing principle, particularly
one that says "do not kill your species with your stratagems and predilections."
Increasingly, it looks like a mass death wish, with all the stacking of means and modes of
destruction and death, from nuclear weapons (proliferating, on top of the thousands
"commanded" the Demonstrably Incompetent Yet Massively Self-interested Warfighters in every
"nation-state" and "tribe with flags," like the 200 to 600 the Israelites have built, and now
the NKs, and the hate-driven folks in India and Pakistan with their ancient enmities and
"rational mutual suspicions. And ambitions") to CRSP-R technology, to the globalized world of
trade and finance, to AI that even its proponents and creators fear, to plastics everywhere,
soil depletion and killing of potable water resources to irreversible climate effects from
several centuries of carbo-combusts-consumption, to the IoT as a self-destructive Golem, for
which we have lost the magic word of control. And so forth.
Though, of course, where lies and deception and stratagems plotted and carried out by the
"successful few" at the top of heap are concerned, we can't even tell if it's the case that
all the bad news and sorrows we are informed about aren't just part of some grand "fear,
uncertainty and doubt" initiative and operation to fill us with existential dread and inject
the virus of a vast sense of futility (an initiative that would go along with the asymptotic
increase in looting behaviors by the Few and their commensallists) to keep the mass of us
passive and bowed and accepting the sweep of the executioner's blade, after they have taken
all our stuff and all our futures... Funny lines from "Buckaroo Banzai," rendered immortal by
John Lithgow in his character as a Red Lectroid from the 8th Dimension: "Laugh'a while you
can, monkey-boy!" And another, apropos of what I'm exploring here: "Jesu Christe! It'a Make
the ganglia TWITCH!" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xCyyU0bSPtk
Russia has an opportunity to go USS Liberty ship on US electronics planes and UAVs.
Of course, they won't.
The most interesting information from b. and Magnier's blog is that Syria intends to wage
an insurgency war of its own against the Turks, Kurds, AQ, al Nusra proxies in the
de-escalation zones.
This seems very good. Better than waging a counter-insurgency war that the US and Israel
are shaping for the Syrians to fight. The US attempt to turning ISIS and AQ into insurgents
seems problematic. Mostly, they will be terrorists on small scale, disrupting transportation
and reconstruction of Syrian economy.
If Syria launches its own insurgents in "occupied" areas, it will have the 'sea' of the
populace to support its warriors. Already, in Idlib this is occurring. And presumably, along
the Lebanon, Golan borders.
Whatever, the future is more war, large scale or small scale. Poor Syria. How its
neighbors desire to consume her.
Russia will be forced out of its recent enclave strategy sooner than later. Diplomacy
without military leverage will not result in security or sovereignty as the Russians
hope.
Trump to enrich the MIC further with increased nuclear weapons development and then break
out the nukes first in response to conventional weapons attacks.
Use of nukes to be in response to an attack on "critical infrastructure".
In other words, any road, bridge, water tower, airstrip, utility, drainage ditch.
In other words, a wide-open interpretation. Carte Blanche.
I think it's not that the US invaders and their SDF grunts are having troubles clearing
the area of Daesh but that a lot less resources are made available now that they lost the
race to Abu Kamal and the US needs an official pretense to stay in Syria and occupy the area
which is completely illegal under international law. Without Daesh there would be even less
reason and the one given would stick even less.
I think it's not that the US invaders and their SDF grunts are having troubles clearing
the area of Daesh but that a lot less resources are made available now that they lost the
race to Abu Kamal and the US needs an official pretense to stay in Syria and occupy the area
which is completely illegal under international law. Without Daesh there would be even less
reason and the one given would stick even less.
thanks b.. excellent coverage of what is happening in syria... unfortunately the
usa-israel-ksa and company are not going to back down.. they will continue as they see the
strengthening of syria as part of a larger problem of the strengthening of iran, or even iraq
and other players that are not playing the same song book these players want.. i think the
recent drone attack is proof of my viewpoint.. russia needs to make a move based on this
brazen act and it needs to send a message loud and clear to not fuck with russia they way the
usa-israel is doing at present..
SAA is pushing through to Aleppo following the rail line. Seems more important than a new
road. The ISIS pocket is advancing in step with SAA. On a map, it looks like they are
covering SAA's right flank. Perhaps the ISIS pocket is Syrians looking for reconciliation?
The Syrian government have said the Kurds can have an administrative devolution type
settlement within a united and sovereign Syria, this is probably ok with Turkey. The US
partitioning plan will not be agreed by Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Russia or Iran or by many Kurds.
Because it is landlocked the oil and gas could not be exported. Maybe a Berlin airlift
operation could work?
According to Tass ,
the drones took off from one of the four de-escalation zones in Syria, this one being in
Iblib zone:
"The ministry also said the drones that tried to attack Hmeymim and Tartus had been
launched from the area of Muazzar, in the southwestern part of the de-escalation zone
Idlib, held by the armed groups of the so-called moderate opposition."
They had been crafted by experienced manufacturers using all kind of components, not
buildt in a professional military equipment factory. However, the craftsmen have been
experienced and used widely available professional components for these one-way drones.
Might well be that they got some support and know-how from Western services who took care
of plausible deniability. owever, the timely monitoring of the attack and the Russion defense
capabilities is suspicious.
if the US was in any responsible for those drones, it would also be very interested in
watching the Russian response - the timing, success rate, etc, in order to also learn more
about the russian equipment and capabilities in Syria for... uh... future 'reference'
form the RT news article, "...Pentagon spokesman Maj. Adrian Rankin-Galloway, however,
claimed that "those devices and technologies can easily be obtained in the open
market."....
Well I guess those "open market" technologies and devices can go both ways, right? Who
could believe that there won't be blow-back against US interests or forces somewhere in
eastern Europe or the middle east?
Iran has been developing drone warfare for years, they have just reverse engineered the US
Sentinel RQ170 they brought down several years ago. Hezbollah also have armed drones flying
around Israel.One intercepted flying near Dimona. Oh dear.
'...The swarm also appears to be remotely controlled, likely as a means to provide
target acquisition and terminal guidance. This allowed defense units to hack them...'
'Remotely controlled' is highly unlikely...in fact I would say ridiculous...
This cannot be done with off the shelf RC airplane stuff...which radio controllers only
work within line of sight due to the nature of the radio frequency...which is 72
megaHertz...there are 50 dedicated channels from 72.01 to 72.99 MHz...in 0.02 MHz
increments...
This small slice of radio band is reserved for RC aircraft and this is what the radio
controllers are built for...
This frequency is in the VHF band... [very high frequency]
which is used for FM radio, TV as well as air traffic control communications with
aircraft...and air navigation systems...ie navaids for landing and such...each particular use
of this band has a certain block of frequencies set aside for its exclusive use...
Aircraft cruising at high altitude can communicate quite long distances in this band but
this makes use of high ground antennas...so they are still line of sight communications...but
can reach longer due to the antenna height and aircraft altitude...
Even flying in a small plane at say 3,000 ft you will be lucky to get good radio at a
distance of 40 nautical miles...[about 70 km]
This equipment also uses more powerful radio transmitters and receivers...both on the
ground and in the airplane...
So 'remotely controlled' is not going to happen beyond line of sight with off the shelf
model RC airplane equipment that is much weaker...that's going to be maybe a few
kilometers...
For radio comms beyond line of sight the HF [high frequency] band is used...this is
a lower frequency of between 3 and 30 MHz...these can reach very long distances because the
radio signals in this wavelength bounce off the ionosphere...
These are used for radio comms with aircraft over ocean routes...where there are obviously
no ground antennas nearby...but they are notoriously sensitive and temperamental...due to the
bouncing...
Anyway this kind of equipment is not suitable for a flight of 100 km...it is really
for much longer distances...and would be very difficult for anything but an expert to cook
up...
So this John Robb...who claims to be a USAF Academy graduate in astronautics...as well as
an airline transport pilot...is talking nonsense here about remotely controlled airplanes
with off the shelf equipment reaching 100 km...
Like I said earlier...a well working autopilot will get this kind of aircraft to 100 km if
it is designed correctly...but there is no remote control involved once the autopilot takes
over...
Hacking into the airplane would not be that difficult by spoofing the GPS/Glonass receiver
on board the aircraft...ie feeding a false location signal...this is how the Iranians brought
down the extremely advanced USAF
RQ170 Sentinel UAV...
US tried to use a swarm of Tomahawks against the Syrian airbase last year, but lost over half
of them. I guess they would be interested in what tech Russia used. Now a small swarm of
drones attacks the Russian base and just by chance a US surveillance plane is loitering in
the area.
Makes sense. Force the enemy to move so you can read him. Probing by fire, it was
sometimes called. The attack serves multiple purposes. So it fits multiple analyses. Russian
MOD says it was foreign, despite the plausible deniability built
in.
I wonder if we'll even see the Russian response - it depends what they want to find out,
or demonstrate, I suppose. It's the ironic thing about Russia, the better it performs, the
more its supporters are in the dark about what it's doing.
Personally, I'm glad to see this turn into insurgency warfare. Less people die, the hands
of the doomsday clock stop and maybe even relax a notch or two, and the tricks become more
subtle.
~~
I read the analysis by Magnier and I can see why b recommended it. The piece by
Bhadrakumar that Don Bacon linked @11 was equally good. And combined with the post by Ziad
Fadel that karlof1 linked @49 we have a trifecta of superb analysis that rounds out b's
summation, and places it all into global and historical perspective.
We've entered an entirely distinct new phase of the Syrian conflict, which is itself the
crucible of a much larger regional conflict, and ultimately of course a global and perhaps
even civilizational conflict.
This is the time of patience now, and those who are not patient will not meet the demands
of this time, not on the battlefield, and not here on the sidelines - IMHO.
Turkey is more plausible as the instigator of drones because they have the best control of
what goes to Idlib-stan. Recently Erdogan was making pretty hostile comments against Assad,
and he is unhappy with the offensive that aims to cut 1/3 of the Idlib-stan away.
On the ground, both sides have limited number of mobile forces capable of serious attacks,
and on Idlib-stan side, the leadership of such forces is fractured. Some decent counter
attacks were launched in the last 24 hours, the advance of Tigers onto Abu Al-Duhur was
repelled and there was an attack on the west flank of the salient that changed the control of
two villages, if temporarily. This attack is ongoing. OTOH, Tigers are the best of SAA, of
second-best are still quite good. Defense of Khanasser highway seem to consist of
"third-best" and a quick reaction force that liquidates any breaches through third-best
defenses. Now these "second-best" attack to split the east lobe of Idlib-stan into southern
and northern parts, and they made impressive progress. That makes a real dilemma for the
defenders how to allocate forces: Tigers on their west side, ISIS on their south, and
Khanasser forces on the east (they were described as "SAA-led").
Strangely enough, ISIS pocket so far avoided attacks on SAA, but one was also reported in
the last 24 hours. This is a multi-way war theater.
Oh, and another thing? Does the United States have anything like the Pantsir? They used to
have mobile radar-controlled autocannons but I think they were scrapped as being obsolete in
the brave new world of air supremacy. I'd be interested to know how effective an F-22 or F-35
would be against a swarm of these drones.
Actually I doubt the United States military would be so stupid as to organize an operation
like this because it lays bare major issues they would have with such an attack. On the
otherhand the idiots at the CIA are stupid and arrogant enough to do something like this and
tell the USN that it would be worth their while to have a Posiden lurking in the area.
I have to add that I'm a bit puzzled that it was a USN Boeing P-8 Poseidon that was used
given it's designed for "anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASUW), and
shipping interdiction, along with an early warning self-protection (EWSP) ability". I would
have expected it to be something like the USAF Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS. I suppose a
naval aircraft flying over the Mediterranean is a bit more deniable.
Yes...the Poseidon would have been within line of sight to the drones even from a long
distance...
This is a good point...
Being an ASW ship doesn't mean the P8 can't carry all kinds of additional gear on board as
needed...it's a Boeing 737 after all...with plenty of room on board...
This brings up the possibility that the P8 'could' conceivably have been carrying
radio transmitters working in the 72 MHz band and able to remotely control the UAVs...
These transmitters would need to be much more powerful than off the shelf RC airplane
transmitters which are limited to just 0.75 watt power by the FCC...
By comparison a passenger jet VHF radio is 25 watts...and ATC [air traffic control] radios
are from 25 to 100 W...
It would not be difficult for any radio engineer to build a custom radio set in the 72 MHz
band that could be as powerful as you want...25 W would be plenty to reach well over 100 km
at an altitude a P8 would fly at...
The antenna would be quite small and could even be inside a flying aircraft...similar to
the small handheld backup
VHF radios used by private pilots...
However...and this is a big one...
Doing something like this would be sure to be picked up instantly by the Russians...who
are monitoring every single radio blip over Syria and beyond...
This kind of thing could not be denied...
We recall the incident in Syria in October 2016 where the Russians identified two Belgian
F16s flying out of Jordan that bombed a village near Aleppo...
The problem was that the US side did not notify the Russians of the flight in advance as
per the deconfliction rules...
Brussels denied the flight ever took place...but the Russians even had the airplanes' tail
numbers...which is the real shocker...
This info is only available to 'friendlies' by means of the warplane's IFF [identification
friend or foe] transponder...which transmits an encrypted radio code...
Friendly aircraft can thus identify the plane...but adversaries cannot...[although they
can hear the transmissions]...
It is still a mystery as to how the Russians managed to do this...but they made a big
diplomatic kerfuffle over it and even presented the proof to the Belgians...so one must
assume that they did in fact manage to do this...
This gives an important clue as to the Russians' capability in the electronic warfare
sphere...
Considering this...it would seem idiotic that the Americans would try something like
controlling that flight of terrorist UAVs from one of their aircraft...it would be easily
proven as a hostile act against Russian forces...the repercussions would be
significant...
As for the possibility of having some terrorists near Hmeimim and Tartus with off the
shelf RC transmitters...well...this could of course happen...but one would assume such
infiltrators could not get very near those facilities...and those weak transmitters might not
be up to the job from a distance of more than a few km...
In any case...it is not necessary...an autopilot equipped homemade UAV like this could
quite easily do what these did...
According to this article, Putin is saying Turkey had nothing to do with the drone
attack. https://sputniknews.com/russia/201801111060680364-putin-syria-bases-attack/
..."There were provocateurs there but they were not Turks, we know who was it was We know,
how much and whom they have paid for this provocation," Putin said...
..."Concerning the attacks, we have no doubts that they had been well prepared, we know when
and where these drones were transferred, as well as the number of drones," Putin added...
Russia Came Under Attack by a 'Swarm' In Syria, Says Report
Russian military forces at the Hmeymim air base and the Tartus logistics
center in Syria came under attack by what appears to have been a swarm of
drones. Some thirteen small
unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) made the attack, six of which were
diverted by Russian electronic warfare systems while seven additional aircraft
were dispatched by Pantsir-S1 air defense batteries.
"During the hours of darkness Russian air defense facilities made clear 13
remoted unknown small-sized air targets approaching the Russian military
assets," the Russian Defense Ministry told the
TASS news agency
. "Ten combat UAVs were approaching Russia's Hmeymim air
base and three more - the logistics center of Tartus."
The Russians are asserting that the unmanned aerial vehicles -- which appear to
have indigenously manufactured -- were constructed with the aid of a developed
country.
"Engineering solutions used by terrorists when attacking Russian facilities in
Syria could have been received only from a country with high technological
potential on providing satellite navigation and distant control of firing
competently assembled self-made explosive devices in appointed place," the
Russian Defense Ministry said.
Analysts dispute the
Russian
contention, arguing that
UAV components are
easily accessible and that drones are no longer the
sole purview of state actors.
"It's very likely that such parts were most likely acquired commercially, in
which case we are entering a dangerous terra incognita with respect to
unsanctioned UAV use by non-state and terrorist organizations," Samuel
Bendett, a researcher specializing in unmanned systems at the Center for Naval
Analyses, told
The National Interest
.
Indeed, the UAVs -- which were 'home-made' -- were more capable in many regards than
one might expect with ranges as great as 60 miles or more.
"Previous UAV-borne attacks were via small commercial quadrocopters- their
accuracy was often questionable but such UAVs used by the terrorist
organizations created a powerful psychological effect," Bendett said. "Now, we
seem to have home-made UAVs that flew for tens of kilometers to their target."
The attack on the
Russian
forces in Syria -- though unsuccessful -- is likely the harbinger of
more such UAV-borne swarm attacks.
"If the Syrian conflict is a showcase of what is possible with existing and
emerging technologies, then such a UAV-borne threat is dead-serious," Bendett
said. "Some expertise is required to outfit such a UAV with navigational
technologies, but again, those could be procured on the open market."
While the Russians seem to believe that the insurgent group that launched the
attack had support from an advanced nation-state, there does not seem to be
much validity to Moscow's position.
"So far, there is no validity to those claims," Bendett said. "The technology
and expertise to make such a UAV is fairly widespread at this point."
The fact of the matter is that drone technology has been democratized and this
attack on the Russians in Syria is the harbinger of a future where even
insurgent groups will have access to advanced capabilities.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can
follow him on Twitter:
@davemajumdar
.
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
"... He talked about the welfare of Syrians as essential to preventing new terrorist outbreaks, about resettling refugees, about working with foreign partners, about the peace process. "All the parties involved should resist the temptation to take advantage of short-term political goals," ..."
Syria. Putin did not distinguish between the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, which
is in keeping with Russia's policy since it intervened at the Assad government's request two
years ago. But he spoke about post–conflict challenges, notably. While most terrorist
groups have been defeated, he said, there is a mop-up phase to complete. Russian forces have
begun to withdraw, thus, but some will remain. This is what one would have expected. He had no
comment on the Pentagon's recent announcement that US security forces will remain on Syrian
soil indefinitely.
The interesting part of Putin's remarks on Syria, at least to me, concerned Russia's
responsibilities now that the war is over. He talked about the welfare of Syrians as
essential to preventing new terrorist outbreaks, about resettling refugees, about working with
foreign partners, about the peace process. "All the parties involved should resist the
temptation to take advantage of short-term political goals,"
Putin asserted. This is a healthy handful of tasks on which Russia now must prove out.
Especially for those who supported Moscow's defense of Damascus to prevent Syria's collapse
into another Libya or Iraq, it is time to watch the Russians. This will be their most
importance performance since, by way of the Syria conflict, they have assumed a more
influential role in the region.
ho is Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the 30-year-old White House aide who could be a key player in the blockbuster
investigation into Russian ties to President Trump and his campaign?
Cohen-Watnick, 30, who
The New York Times reports
provided key information in the probe, is a once fast-rising protege of ousted
Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn with deep roots in suburban Washington's Jewish community.
The paper identified him as one of two staffers who explosively gave information on intelligence gathering in
the Russia probe to Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a move that potentially
compromised the lawmaker's role in the bombshell probe.
Cohen-Watnick grew up in Chevy Chase, Maryland, just outside the nation's capital, and attended the nearby
Conservative synagogue Ohr Kodesh. Last November he celebrated his engagement to Rebecca Miller at the synagogue.
He attended the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in 2008. Cohen-Watnick began working as an intelligence
analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency after college. At the DIA, Cohen-Watnick met Flynn, the then-director
who was later removed from his position during the Obama administration.
After Trump won the November election, Flynn brought Cohen-Watnick from the DIA to the Trump transition team,
where the young staffer, according to
The Washington Post,
was among the few Trump advisers to hold a top security clearance. He participated in
high-level intelligence briefings and briefed Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and their team on national security
issues.
When Flynn was appointed to lead the National Security Council, he hired Cohen-Watnick to work with him there.
But Flynn served as national security adviser for less than a month before being asked to leave following
revelations that he had maintained ties with Russia during the campaign.
Flynn's successor, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, sought to remove Cohen-Watnick from the team, following input from
the CIA director who pointed to problems intelligence officers had when dealing with Cohen-Watnick. Questions were
raised about his ability to carry out the position of senior NSC director for intelligence programs, who oversees
ties with intelligence agencies and vets information that should reach the president's desk.
But Cohen-Watnick was spared when Trump personally intervened, reportedly after top White House aides Sphen
Bannon and Jared Kushner stepped in. Cohen-Watnick still serves as senior director at the NSC.
Cohen-Watnick is known for holding hawkish views on national security issues and of being a proponent of an
American tough line toward Iran.
The Times said that Cohen-Watnick became swept up in the Russia probe this month, shortly after Trump wrote on
Twitter about unsubstantiated claims of being wiretapped on the orders of the former president Barack Obama.
Cohen-Watnick apparently was reviewing highly classified reports detailing the intercepted communications of
foreign officials that consisted primarily of ambassadors and other foreign officials talking about how they were
trying to curry favor with Trump's family and inner circle in advance of his inauguration.
He and another aide, identified as Michael Ellis, came across information that Trump aides may have been
inadvertently caught on some of the surveillance.
Nunes says he went to the White House to meet with the aides, whom he has refused to identify. Nunes wolud not
share the information with his colleagues on the committee but did brief Trump, raising major questions about his
independence.
Cohen-Watnick, 30, who
The New York Times reports
provided key information in the probe, is a once fast-rising protege of ousted
Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn with deep roots in suburban Washington's Jewish community.
The paper identified him as one of two staffers who explosively gave information on intelligence gathering in
the Russia probe to Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a move that potentially
compromised the lawmaker's role in the bombshell probe.
Cohen-Watnick grew up in Chevy Chase, Maryland, just outside the nation's capital, and attended the nearby
Conservative synagogue Ohr Kodesh. Last November he celebrated his engagement to Rebecca Miller at the synagogue.
He attended the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in 2008. Cohen-Watnick began working as an intelligence
analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency after college. At the DIA, Cohen-Watnick met Flynn, the then-director
who was later removed from his position during the Obama administration.
After Trump won the November election, Flynn brought Cohen-Watnick from the DIA to the Trump transition team,
where the young staffer, according to
The Washington Post,
was among the few Trump advisers to hold a top security clearance. He participated in
high-level intelligence briefings and briefed Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and their team on national security
issues.
When Flynn was appointed to lead the National Security Council, he hired Cohen-Watnick to work with him there.
But Flynn served as national security adviser for less than a month before being asked to leave following
revelations that he had maintained ties with Russia during the campaign.
Flynn's successor, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, sought to remove Cohen-Watnick from the team, following input from
the CIA director who pointed to problems intelligence officers had when dealing with Cohen-Watnick. Questions were
raised about his ability to carry out the position of senior NSC director for intelligence programs, who oversees
ties with intelligence agencies and vets information that should reach the president's desk.
But Cohen-Watnick was spared when Trump personally intervened, reportedly after top White House aides Sphen
Bannon and Jared Kushner stepped in. Cohen-Watnick still serves as senior director at the NSC.
Cohen-Watnick is known for holding hawkish views on national security issues and of being a proponent of an
American tough line toward Iran.
The Times said that Cohen-Watnick became swept up in the Russia probe this month, shortly after Trump wrote on
Twitter about unsubstantiated claims of being wiretapped on the orders of the former president Barack Obama.
Cohen-Watnick apparently was reviewing highly classified reports detailing the intercepted communications of
foreign officials that consisted primarily of ambassadors and other foreign officials talking about how they were
trying to curry favor with Trump's family and inner circle in advance of his inauguration.
He and another aide, identified as Michael Ellis, came across information that Trump aides may have been
inadvertently caught on some of the surveillance.
Nunes says he went to the White House to meet with the aides, whom he has refused to identify. Nunes wolud not
share the information with his colleagues on the committee but did brief Trump, raising major questions about his
independence.
"... 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. ..."
"... "'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.' ..."
"... 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. ..."
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.
"... What's puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn't extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet. ..."
"... Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or promoted this country's various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have, of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will ultimately cost American taxpayers many trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated "terrorism," as President George W. Bush promised back when today's G.I.s were still in diapers. ..."
"... Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy. Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist groups, while acts of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts. ..."
"... For starters, there is no "new strategy." Trump's generals, apparently with a nod from their putative boss, are merely modifying the old "strategy," which was itself an outgrowth of previous strategies tried, found wanting, and eventually discarded before being rebranded and eventually recycled. ..."
"... Thus far, Trump's interventionism has been a fragment of what the Hillary campaign promised. ..."
"... This is the center of a world empire. It maintains a gigantic military which virtually never stops fighting wars, none of them having anything to do with defense. It has created an intelligence monstrosity which makes old outfits like Stazi seem almost quaint, and it spies on everyone. Indeed, it maintains seventeen national security establishments, as though you can never have too much of a good thing. And some of these guys, too, are engaged full-time in forms of covert war, from fomenting trouble in other lands and interfering in elections to overthrowing governments. ..."
"... It's unlikely that the USA would be remaining in Afghanistan if its goals were not being attained. So the author has merely shown that the stated goals cannot be the real goals. What then are the real goals? I propose two: 1) establish a permanent military presence on a Russian border; 2) finance it with the heroin trade. Given other actions of the Empire around the globe, the first goal is obvious. The bombing of mud huts containing competitors' drug labs, conjoined with the fact that we do not destroy the actual poppy fields (obvious green targets in an immense ocean of brown) make this goal rather obvious as well. The rest of the article is simply more evidence that the Empire does not include mere human tragedy in its profit calculation. ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich calls for a Weinstein moment without realizing that it already happened more than ten years ago. The 2006 midterm elections were the first Weinstein moment, which saw the American people deliver a huge outpouring of antiwar sentiment that inflicted significant congressional losses on the neocon Republicans of George W. Bush. ..."
What makes a Harvey Weinstein moment? The now-disgraced Hollywood mogul is hardly the first
powerful man to stand accused of having abused women. The Harveys who preceded Harvey himself
are legion, their prominence matching or exceeding his own and the misdeeds with which they
were charged at least as reprehensible.
In the relatively recent past, a roster of prominent offenders would include Bill Clinton,
Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, and, of course, Donald Trump. Throw in various jocks,
maestros, senior military officers, members of the professoriate and you end up with quite a
list. Yet in virtually all such cases, the alleged transgressions were treated as instances of
individual misconduct, egregious perhaps but possessing at best transitory political
resonance.
All that, though, was pre-Harvey. As far as male sexual hijinks are concerned, we might
compare Weinstein's epic fall from grace to the stock market crash of 1929: one week it's the
anything-goes Roaring Twenties, the next we're smack dab in a Great Depression.
How profound is the change? Up here in Massachusetts where I live, we've spent the past year
marking John F. Kennedy's 100th birthday. If Kennedy were still around to join in the
festivities, it would be as a Class A sex offender. Rarely in American history has the cultural
landscape shifted so quickly or so radically.
In our post-Harvey world, men charged with sexual misconduct are guilty until proven
innocent, all crimes are capital offenses, and there exists no statute of limitations. Once a
largely empty corporate slogan, "zero tolerance" has become a battle cry.
All of this serves as a reminder that, on some matters at least, the American people retain
an admirable capacity for outrage. We can distinguish between the tolerable and the
intolerable. And we can demand accountability of powerful individuals and
institutions.
Everything They Need to Win (Again!)
What's puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn't
extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet.
In no way would I wish to minimize the pain, suffering, and humiliation of the women preyed
upon by the various reprobates now getting their belated comeuppance. But to judge from
published accounts, the women (and in some cases, men) abused by Weinstein, Louis C.K., Mark
Halperin, Leon Wieseltier, Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Garrison
Keillor, my West Point classmate Judge Roy Moore, and their compadres at least managed
to survive their encounters. None of the perpetrators are charged with having committed murder.
No one died.
Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or
promoted this country's various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have,
of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will
ultimately cost American taxpayers many
trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated "terrorism," as
President George W. Bush promised back when today's G.I.s were still in diapers.
Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy.
Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across
the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist
groups, while acts
of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts.
It discomfits me to reiterate this mournful litany of truths. I feel a bit like the doctor
telling the lifelong smoker with stage-four lung cancer that an addiction to cigarettes is
adversely affecting his health. His mute response: I know and I don't care. Nothing the doc
says is going to budge the smoker from his habit. You go through the motions, but wonder
why.
In a similar fashion, war has become a habit to which the United States is addicted. Except
for the terminally distracted, most of us know that. We also know -- wecannot not
know -- that, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. forces have been unable to
accomplish their assigned mission, despite more than 16 years of fighting in the former and
more than a decade in the latter.
It's not exactly a good news story, to put it mildly. So forgive me for saying it (
yet again ), but most of us simply don't care, which means that we continue to allow a free
hand to those who preside over those wars, while treating with respect the views of pundits and
media personalities who persist in promoting them. What's past doesn't count; we prefer to
sustain the pretense that tomorrow is pregnant with possibilities. Victory lies just around the
corner.
By way of example, consider a
recent article in U.S. News and World Report. The headline: "Victory or Failure in
Afghanistan: 2018 Will Be the Deciding Year." The title suggests a balance absent from the text
that follows, which reads like a Pentagon press release. Here in its entirety is the nut graf
(my own emphasis added):
"Armed with a new strategy and renewed support from old allies, the Trump
administration now believes it has everything it needs to win the war in Afghanistan.
Top military advisers all the way up to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis say they can accomplish
what two previous administrations and multiple troop surges could not: the defeat of the
Taliban by Western-backed local forces, a negotiated peace and the establishment of a
popularly supported government in Kabul capable of keeping the country from once again becoming
a haven to any terrorist group."
Now if you buy this, you'll believe that Harvey Weinstein has learned his lesson and can be
trusted to interview young actresses while wearing his bathrobe.
For starters, there is no "new strategy." Trump's generals, apparently with a nod from their
putative boss, are merely modifying the old "strategy," which was itself an outgrowth of
previous strategies tried, found wanting, and eventually discarded before being rebranded and
eventually recycled.
Short of using nuclear weapons, U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan over the past decade and
a half have experimented with just about every approach imaginable: invasion, regime change,
occupation, nation-building, pacification, decapitation, counterterrorism, and
counterinsurgency, not to mention various surges ,
differing in scope and duration. We have had a big troop presence and a smaller one, more
bombing and less, restrictive rules of engagement and permissive ones. In the military
equivalent of throwing in the kitchen sink, a U.S. Special Operations Command four-engine prop
plane recently deposited the largest non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal on a cave
complex in eastern Afghanistan. Although that MOAB made a big
boom, no offer of enemy surrender materialized.
$65
billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. And under the circumstances, consider that a mere down
payment.
According to General John Nicholson, our
17th commander in Kabul since 2001, the efforts devised and implemented by his many
predecessors have resulted in a "stalemate" -- a generous interpretation given that the Taliban
presently controls more
territory than it has held since the U.S. invasion. Officers no less capable than Nicholson
himself, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal among them, didn't get it done. Nicholson's
argument: trust me.
In essence, the "new strategy" devised by Trump's generals, Secretary of Defense Mattis and
Nicholson among them, amounts to this: persist a tad longer with a tad more. A modest uptick in
the number of U.S. and allied
troops on the ground will provide more trainers, advisers, and motivators to work with and
accompany their Afghan counterparts in the field. The Mattis/Nicholson plan also envisions an
increasing number of air strikes, signaled by the recent use of B-52s to attack illicit
Taliban "
drug labs ," a scenario that Stanley Kubrick himself would have been hard-pressed to
imagine.
Notwithstanding the novelty of using strategic bombers to destroy mud huts, there's not a
lot new here. Dating back to 2001, coalition forces have already dropped tens of thousands of
bombs in Afghanistan. Almost as soon as the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, coalition efforts
to create effective Afghan security forces commenced. So, too, did attempts to reduce the
production of the opium that has funded the Taliban insurgency, alas with essentially
no effect whatsoever . What Trump's generals want a gullible public (and astonishingly
gullible and inattentive members of Congress) to believe is that this time they've somehow
devised a formula for getting it right.
Turning the Corner
With his trademark capacity to intuit success, President Trump already sees clear evidence
of progress. "We're not fighting anymore to just walk around," he remarked in his
Thanksgiving message to the troops. "We're fighting to win. And you people [have] turned it
around over the last three to four months like nobody has seen." The president, we may note,
has yet to visit Afghanistan.
I'm guessing that the commander-in-chief is oblivious to the fact that, in U.S. military
circles, the term winning has acquired notable elasticity. Trump may think that it
implies vanquishing the enemy -- white flags and surrender ceremonies on the U.S.S. Missouri . General Nicholson knows better. "Winning," the field commander
says , "means delivering a negotiated settlement that reduces the level of violence and
protecting the homeland." (Take that definition at face value and we can belatedly move Vietnam
into the win column!)
Should we be surprised that Trump's generals, unconsciously imitating General William
Westmoreland a half-century ago, claim once again to detect light at the end of the tunnel? Not
at all. Mattis and Nicholson (along with White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and National
Security Adviser H.R. McMaster) are following the Harvey Weinstein playbook: keep doing it
until they make you stop. Indeed, with what can only be described as chutzpah, Nicholson
himself recently announced that we have "
turned the corner " in Afghanistan. In doing so, of course, he is counting on Americans not
to recall the various war managers, military and civilian alike, who have made identical claims
going back years now, among them Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012
.
From on high, assurances of progress; in the field, results that, year after year, come
nowhere near what's promised; on the homefront, an astonishingly credulous public. The war in
Afghanistan has long since settled into a melancholy and seemingly permanent rhythm.
The fact is that the individuals entrusted by President Trump to direct U.S. policy believe
with iron certainty that difficult political problems will yield to armed might properly
employed. That proposition is one to which generals like Mattis and Nicholson have devoted a
considerable part of their lives, not just in Afghanistan but across much of the Islamic world.
They are no more likely to question the validity of that proposition than the Pope is to
entertain second thoughts about the divinity of Jesus Christ.
In Afghanistan, their entire worldview -- not to mention the status and clout of the officer
corps they represent -- is at stake. No matter how long the war there lasts, no matter how many
"
generations " it takes, no matter how much blood is shed to no purpose, and no matter how
much money is wasted, they will never admit to failure -- nor will any of the
militarists-in-mufti cheering them on from the sidelines in Washington, Donald Trump not the
least among them.
Meanwhile, the great majority of the American people, their attention directed elsewhere --
it's the season for holiday shopping, after all -- remain studiously indifferent to the charade
being played out before their eyes.
It took a succession of high-profile scandals before Americans truly woke up to the plague
of sexual harassment and assault. How long will it take before the public concludes that they
have had enough of wars that don't work? Here's hoping it's before our president, in a moment
of ill temper, unleashes "
fire and fury " on the world.
It's astonishing to see people make the claim that "victory" is possible in Afghanistan.
Could they actually believe this or are they lying in order to drag this out even longer and
keep the money pit working overtime? These are individuals that are highly placed and so
should know better. It's not really a war but an occupation with the native insurgents
fighting to oust the foreign occupier. The US has tried every trick there is in trying to
tamp down the insurgency. They know what we're trying to do and can thwart us at every step.
The US lost even as it began it's invasion there but didn't know it yet in the wake of it's
initial success in scattering the Taliban, not even a real army and not even a real state.
They live there and we don't; they can resist for the next thirty years or fifty years. When
does the multi-billion bill come due and how will we pay it?
"How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that
don't work?"
It already happened, but Progressives like you failed to note that Republican voters
subbed the Bush clan and their various associates for Trump in the Primary season, precisely
because he called the Iraq and Afghan wars mistakes. The Americans suffer under a two party
establishment that is clearly antagonistic to their interests. As a part of that regime, a
dutiful Progressive toad, you continue to peddle the lie that it was the war-weary White
Americans who celebrated those wars. In reality, any such support was ginned up from tools
like you who wrote puff pieces for their Neocon Progressive masters.
Thus far, Trump's interventionism has been a fragment of what the Hillary campaign
promised. Might you count that among your lucky stars? Fat chance. You cretinous Progressive
filth have no such spine upon which to base an independent thought. You trot out the same old
tiresome tropes week after week fulfilling your designated propagandist duty and then you
skulk back to your den of iniquity to prepare another salvo of agitprop. What a miserable
existence.
This is the center of a world empire. It maintains a gigantic military which virtually never
stops fighting wars, none of them having anything to do with defense. It has created an
intelligence monstrosity which makes old outfits like Stazi seem almost quaint, and it spies
on everyone. Indeed, it maintains seventeen national security establishments, as though you
can never have too much of a good thing. And some of these guys, too, are engaged full-time
in forms of covert war, from fomenting trouble in other lands and interfering in elections to
overthrowing governments.
Obama ended up killing more people than any dictator or demagogue of this generation on
earth you care to name, several hundred thousand of them in his eight years. And he found new
ways to kill, too, as by creating the world's first industrial-scale extrajudicial killing
operation. Here he signs off on "kill lists," placed in his Oval Office in-box, to murder
people he has never seen, people who enjoy no legal rights or protections. His signed orders
are carried out by uniformed thugs working at computer screens in secure basements where they
proceed to play computer games with real live humans as their targets, again killing or
maiming people they have never seen.
If you ever have wondered where all the enabling workers came from in places like Stalin's
Gulag or Hitler's concentration camps, well, here is your answer. American itself produces
platoons of such people. You could find them working at Guantanamo and in the far-flung
string of secret torture facilities the CIA ran for years, and you could find them in places
like Fallujah or Samarra or Abu Ghraib, at the CIA's basement game arcade killing centers,
and even all over the streets of America dressed as police who shoot unarmed people every
day, sometimes in the back.
ZOG has now asserted the right to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. No trial,
no hearing, no witnesses, no defense, no nothing. Is this actually legal? Any constitutional
lawyers out there care to comment? Has ZOG now achieved the status of an all-powerful
all-knowing deity with the power of life and death over all living things?
It's unlikely that the USA would be remaining in Afghanistan if its goals were not being
attained. So the author has merely shown that the stated goals cannot be the real goals. What
then are the real goals? I propose two: 1) establish a permanent military presence on a
Russian border; 2) finance it with the heroin trade. Given other actions of the Empire around
the globe, the first goal is obvious. The bombing of mud huts containing competitors' drug
labs, conjoined with the fact that we do not destroy the actual poppy fields (obvious green
targets in an immense ocean of brown) make this goal rather obvious as well. The rest of the
article is simply more evidence that the Empire does not include mere human tragedy in its
profit calculation.
The Native Born White American Working Class Teenage Male Population used as CANNON FODDER
for Congressman Steven Solarz's and Donald Trump's very precious Jewish only Israel .
Israel and the deep state did the attack on 911 and thus set the table for the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Syria and the Zionist neocons who control every facet of
the U.S. gov and the MSM and the MIC and the FED ie the BANKS set in motion the blood
sacrifice for their Zionist god SATAN, that is what they have done.
The Zionist warmongers and Satanists will destroy America.
It's not so much that America is addicted to war as that the American "business model" makes
permanent war inevitable. US global dominance rests on economic domination, in particular,
the dollar as world reserve currency. That has allowed the US economy to survive in spite of
being hollowed out, financialised and burdened with enormous sovereign debt. Economic
dominance derives from political dominance, which, in its turn, flows from military
dominance. For that military dominance to be credible, not only must the US have the biggest
and best military forces on the planet, it must show itself willing to use those forces to
maintain its dominance by actually using them from time to time, in particular, to
unequivocally beat off any challenge to its dominance (Putin!). It also, of course, must win,
or, more correctly, be able to present the outcome credibly as a win. Failure to maintain
military dominance will undermine the position of the dollar, sending its value through the
floor. A low dollar means cheap exports (Boeing will sell more planes than Airbus!), but it
also means that imports (oil, outsourced goods) will be dear. At that point the hollowed out
nature of the US economy will cut in, probably provoking a Soviet-style implosion of the US
economy and society and ruining anyone who has holdings denominated in dollars. I call that
the Gorbachev conundrum. Gorby believed in the Soviet Union and wanted to reform it. But the
Soviet system had become so rigid as to be unreformable. He pulled a threat and the whole
system unravelled. But if he hadn't pulled the thread, the whole system would have unravelled
anyway. It was a choice between hard landing and harder landing. Similarly, US leaders have
to continue down the only road open to them: permanent war. As Thomas Jefferson said of
slavery, it's like holding a wolf by the ears. You don't like it but you don't dare let go!
"How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that
don't work?" Answer: Never.
In Alabama when people would rant about how toxic Roy Moore was, I would politely point
out that his opponent for Senate was OK with spending trillions of dollars fighting pointless
winless wars on the other side of the planet just so politically connected defense
contractors can make a buck, and ask if that should be an issue too? The response,
predictably, was as if I was an alien from the planet Skyron in the galaxy of Andromeda.
We are sheep. We are outraged at these sexual transgressions because the corporate press
tells us to be outraged. We are not outraged at these stupid foreign wars, because the
corporate press does not tell us to be outraged. It's all mass effect, and the comfort of
being in a herd and all expressing the same feelings.
Andrew Bacevich is wrong about a couple of things in this article.
First, he says that the American public is both apathetic and credulous. I agree
that we have largely become apathetic towards these imperial wars, but I disagree that we
have become credulous. In fact, these two states of mind exclude one another; you cannot be
both apathetic and credulous with respect to the same object at the same time. The credulity
charge is easy to dismiss because virtually no one today believes anything that comes out of
Washington or its mouthpieces in the legacy media. The apathy charge is on point but it needs
qualification. The smarter, more informed Americans have seen that their efforts to change
the course of American policy have been to no avail, and they've given up in frustration and
disgust. The less smart, less informed Americans are constrained by the necessity of getting
on with their meager lives; they are an apolitical mass that possesses neither the
understanding nor the capacity to make any difference on the policy front whatsoever.
Second,Andrew Bacevich calls for a Weinstein moment without realizing that it
already happened more than ten years ago. The 2006 midterm elections were the first Weinstein
moment, which saw the American people deliver a huge outpouring of antiwar sentiment that
inflicted significant congressional losses on the neocon Republicans of George W. Bush. An
echo of that groundswell happened again in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected to office on an
explicitly antiwar platform. But Obama turned out to be one of the most pro-war presidents
ever, and thus an angry electorate made one final push in the same direction by attempting to
clean house with Donald Trump. Now that Donald has shown every sign of having cucked out to
the war lobby, we seem to be left with no electoral solutions.
The only thing that's going to work is for the American Imperium to be handed a
much-deserved military and financial defeat. The one encouraging fact is that if the top ten
percent of our political and financial elite were planed off by a foreign power, the American
people would give as few damns about that as they currently do about our imperial wars.
Very good but some little errors. Concerning Russia and China, Russia vent all or
nothing.
China was much smarter. First they allowed self employment, than small business and long time
after they started to sell state enterprises,
If Tom's Dispatch continues to be successful, Americans will continue to be asleep.
Masterful propaganda. War, according to our favorite spooks, is necessary to win, but
otherwise reprehensible.
Sex is otherwise necessary for human life but Harvey Weinstein is ugly. Hold tightly to
your cognitive dissonance, because you're expected to remember John F Kennedy who got it on,
but is the expendable martyr you should care about, not that other guy
Let's review: terror attacks are wins. Superior or effective anti-war propaganda comes
from the military
itself. They really don't want war, but really they do.
We're trying to make Afghanistan not Afghanistan: aka, trying to be a miracle worker. We
can throw as much money as we like at that place, and it isn't going to happen, least of all
with troops on nine month shifts.
Let Iran and Pakistan squabble over it. Good riddance.
1) doesn't really make much sense, given that Poland and the Baltic States would be more
than happy to take all US forces in Europe to give us a presence near Russia in a part of the
world that would be far easier to justify to the American public-and to the international
community. Afghanistan? Who exactly is Russia going to mess with? Iran is their-for now,
longer term, the two have conflicting agendas in the region, but don't expect the geniuses in
the Beltway to pick up on that opportunity-ally, and unlike the USSR, the Russians don't want
to get involved in the India-Pakistan conflict. Russia's current tilt toward China makes a
strategic marriage with India of the kind that you found in the Cold War impossible, but they
obviously don't want to tilt toward the basketcase known as Pakistan. The only reason that
Russia would want to get involved with Afghanistan beyond having a more preferable status
than having American troops there is power projection among ex-Soviet states, and there are
far more effective ways to do than muddle about with Afghanistan.
2, on the other hand, given Iran-Contra who knows? The first generation of the Taliban
pretty much wiped the heroin trade out as offensive to Islamic sensibilities, but the newer
generations have no such qualms.
I think you give America's rulers far too much credit. The truth is probably far scarier:
the morons who work in the Beltway honestly believe their own propaganda-that we can make
Afghanistan into some magical Western democracy if we throw enough money at it-and combine
that with the usual bureaucratic inertia.
According to General John Nicholson, our 17th commander in Kabul since 2001,
We have been killing these people for 17 years. Now our generals say that if we
indiscriminately kill enough men, women, and children who get in the way of our B52s, that
they will see the light and make peace. How totally wonderful.
My solution is to gage the Lindsey Grahams for a year.
What will do more good for peace – B52s or shutting up Graham's elk?
I remember when Trump said he knew more than the generals and was viciously attacked for it.
It turns out he did know more than the generals just by knowing it was a waste. Trump was
pushed by politics to defer to the generals who always have an answer when it comes to a war
– more men, more weapons, more time.
"The less smart, less informed Americans are constrained by the necessity of getting on
with their meager lives; they are an apolitical mass that possesses neither the understanding
nor the capacity to make any difference on the policy front whatsoever."
I wonder if any Abolitionists criticized the slaves for failing to revolt? Probably not;
I'm guessing they were mostly convinced that the negro required intervention from outside,
whether due to their nature or from overwhelming circumstance.
If the enslaved American public is liberated, I hope we'll know what to do with ourselves
afterwards. It'd be a shame to simply end up in another kind of bondage, resentful and
subject to whatever oppressive system replaces the current outrage. Perhaps the next one will
more persuasively convince us that we're important and essential?
We are sheep. We are outraged at these sexual transgressions because the corporate press
tells us to be outraged. We are not outraged at these stupid foreign wars, because the
corporate press does not tell us to be outraged. It's all mass effect, and the comfort of
being in a herd and all expressing the same feelings.
Thank you, Andrew J. Bacevich, for your words of wisdom and thank you, Mr. Unz, for this
post.
This corporation needs to be dissolved. I've read about "the inertia" of Federal Government
that has morphed into a cash cow for a century of wasted tax dollars funding the MIIC, now
the MIIC. Does our existence have to end in financial ruin or, worse yet, some foreign entity
creating havoc on our soil?
The Founders NEVER intended that the US of A become a meddler in other Sovereignty's internal
affairs or the destroyer of Nation States that do not espoused our "doctrine." Anyone without
poop for brains knows that this is about Imperialism and greed, fueled by money and an
insatiable luster for MORE.
This should be easier to change than it appears. Is there no will? After all, it Is our
Master's money that lubricates the machinery. So, we continue to provide the lubrication for
our Masters like a bunch of imbeciles that allow them to survail our words and movements.
Somebody please explain our stupidity.
the folks in the US are sick of the wars, contrary to Bacevich. They simply will vote come
next election accordingly. They register their disgust in all the polls.
This article is not very useful. More punditry puff.
No comments on the Next War for Israel being cooked up by the new crop of neocon
youngsters, I guess, and Trump who will trump, trump, trump into the next War for the
Jews.
How about some political science on Iran, Syria, Hisbollah, Hamas and the US, Arabia,
Judenstaat axis of evil?
Hey Bacevich? When you link to WashPost and NYTimes to make your points, you don't. They
block access if you've already read links to those two papers three times each and can no
longer, for the month, read there. When folks link to papers that won't let you read, it
makes one wonder why.
I believe Americans are damned sick and tired of the stupid, needless war in Afghanistan. But
then they should have been sick and tired of stupid , needless wars like Korea, Vietnam and
Iraq, and probably most of them were. But it's easy to be complacent when someone else's son
is doing the fighting and dying And it's easy to be complacent when your stomach is full and
you have plenty of booze and pain killers available. There will be a day of reckoning when
the next big economic bust arrives and which may make the Great Depression paltry by
comparison. America is a far different place then it was in the 1930s when our population was
140 million. Americans were not so soft and the conveniences we now take for granted not
available. When the supermarkets run out of food, watch out. There may not even be any soup
lines to stand in.
In truth, U.S. commanders have quietly shelved any expectations of achieving an actual
victory -- traditionally defined as "imposing your will on the enemy" -- in favor of a more
modest conception of success.
Your assumptions are wrong about the US goal of the invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Iraq were not invaded to establish democracy or impose American will
whatever that is. Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded to establish a temporary military staging ground for a
US invasion of Iran, the designated regional enemy of Israel. As long as the current regime in Iran remains, the US will remain in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
And minerals! Eric Prince himself recently tried to sell the idea of having his private
militias do the fighting in Afghanistan for the US and finance it by mining said country's
minerals, thus making himself even richer.
I was onboard with Mr. Bacevich, until I got to this:
Almost as soon as the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, coalition efforts to create
effective Afghan security forces commenced. So, too, did attempts to reduce the production
of the opium that has funded the Taliban insurgency
What utter rubbish! The Taliban was instrumental in shutting down the poppy production
until the CIA came along and restarted it to fund their black ops.
We have the reverse Midas touch. Everything we touch (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.,
etc.) turns to shit. We supposedly attack countries to liberate them from their tyrants who
are supposedly killing their own people, and end up killing more people than all of them put
together. And, oh yes, we have our favorite tyrants (Saudis, Israelis) whom we provide with
horrible weapons (like cluster bombs) to help them kill people we hate.
Mr. Bacevich is right about the lack of outrage about our wars, but the current Weinstein
explosion consists of hordes of mostly American female victims, mostly white, a (very) few
jews, and a few men, who have the stage to complain about their oppressors. What would be the
counterpart of that w.r.t. the wars? Millions of brown victims in far away lands that most of
us couldn't even find on a map? How likely is that to happen?
So yes, no outrage, and none likely. The last 17 years have proven that.
You don't know the American has been paying everything through monopoly money printed
through the thin air since WWI, i.e. a keystroke on the Federal Reserve's computer? No wonder
the Americans have been waging reckless wars all over the world on the fabricated phantom WMD
allegations as humanitarian intervention relentlessly.
Romans did not stop waging reckless wars until their empire collapsed; the British
imitates the Romans and the American is born out of the British, hence the Americans will no
stop waging reckless wars until their empire collapsed like the Romans.
This review way written almost two year ago. The new President is now sitting in White house. Nothing changed.
The problem with Bacevich' views is that neoliberalism dictates expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire as well in best
Trotskyism tradition "export of neoliberal revolution" using bayonets, if other means do not work. So this is the nature of the
neoliberal beast, not an aberration like he assumes. Militarism is essence of US foreign policy under neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... This book, Bacevich's eighth, extends his string of brutal, bracing and essential critiques of the pernicious role of reflexive militarism in American foreign policy. As in past books, Bacevich is thought-provoking, profane and fearless. Assailing generals, journalists and foreign policy experts alike, he links together more than a dozen military interventions that span 35 years and declares them a single war. Bacevich analyzes each intervention, looking for common themes from Carter's late 1970s missteps to Barack Obama's widespread use of assassination by drone strike today. ..."
"... A presumption that using military power signified to friends and foes that Washington was getting serious about a problem diminished the role of diplomats and diplomacy. " 'Getting serious' also implied a preference for uniforms over suits as the principal agents of U.S. policy," Bacevich writes. "Henceforth, rather than military power serving as the handmaiden of diplomacy, the reverse would be true." ..."
"... In another repeated mistake, triumphalist American commanders prematurely declare victory without realizing that their opponent has simply withdrawn to fight another day as a guerrilla force, as occurred in Afghanistan in 2001. They also personalize the enemy, wrongly assuming that the removal of figures like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi will instantly end conflict. ..."
"... From Somalia in 1993 to Yemen today, American commanders and policy makers overestimated the advantage American military technology bestows on them. And most crucially of all, the United States has failed to decide whether it is, in fact, at war. ..."
"... "In the war for the greater Middle East, the United States chose neither to contain nor to crush, instead charting a course midway in between," Bacevich writes. "Instead of intimidating, U.S. military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated a lack of both competence and determination." ..."
"... For all that, Bacevich is right that the United States' reflexive use of armed intervention in the Middle East is folly. An unquestioning faith in military might and an underinvestment in diplomacy has tied Washington in a policy straitjacket. Bacevich's call for Americans to rethink their nation's militarized approach to the Middle East is incisive, urgent and essential. ..."
BOOK REVIEW: AMERICA'S WAR FOR THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST (A Military History) By Andrew J. Bacevich
Illustrated. 453 pp. Random House. $30.
In the opening chapter of his latest book, the military historian Andrew J. Bacevich blames Jimmy Carter, a president commonly
viewed as more meek than martial, for unwittingly spawning 35 years of American military intervention in the Middle East. Bacevich
argues that three mistakes by Carter set precedents that led to decades of squandered American lives and treasure.
First, Carter called on Americans to stop worshiping "self-indulgence and consumption" and join a nationwide effort to conserve
energy. Self-sacrifice, he argued in what is now widely derided as Carter's "malaise speech," would free Americans from their dependence
on foreign oil and "help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country."
The president came across as more hectoring pastor than visionary leader, Bacevich argues in "America's War for the Greater Middle
East." His guileless approach squandered an opportunity to persuade Americans reeling from high foreign oil prices to trade "dependence
for autonomy."
Carter's second mistake was authorizing American support to guerrillas fighting a Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan, a move
that eventually helped fuel the spread of radical Islam. Finally, in a misguided effort to counter views that he was "too soft,"
Carter declared that the United States would respond with military force to any outside effort to seize Persian Gulf oil fields.
"This statement, subsequently enshrined as the Carter Doctrine, inaugurated America's war for the greater Middle East," Bacevich
writes.
This book, Bacevich's eighth, extends his string of brutal, bracing and essential critiques of the pernicious role of reflexive
militarism in American foreign policy. As in past books, Bacevich is thought-provoking, profane and fearless. Assailing generals,
journalists and foreign policy experts alike, he links together more than a dozen military interventions that span 35 years and declares
them a single war. Bacevich analyzes each intervention, looking for common themes from Carter's late 1970s missteps to Barack Obama's
widespread use of assassination by drone strike today.
Washington's penchant for intervention, Bacevich contends, is driven by more than America's thirst for oil or the military-industrial
complex's need for new enemies. In addition to these two factors, he argues that "a deeply pernicious collective naďveté" among both
Republicans and Democrats spawns interventions doomed by "confusion and incoherence."
The ultimate responsibility for the United States' actions lies with an "oblivious" American public engrossed in "shallow digital
enthusiasms and the worship of celebrity," Bacevich writes. Americans support freedom, democracy and prosperity in other nations,
he tells us, as long as they get the lion's share of it. "Ensuring that Americans enjoy their rightful quota (which is to say, more
than their fair share) of freedom, abundance and security comes first," Bacevich says. "Everything else figures as an afterthought."
Bacevich's argument is heavy-handed at times, but when he writes about military strategy, he is genuinely incisive. Citing numerous
examples, he convincingly argues that destructive myths about the efficacy of American military power blind policy makers, generals
and voters. The use of overwhelming lethal force does not immediately cause dictators or terrorists to turn tail and run, even if
that's what politicians in Washington want to believe. Rather, it often leads to resentment, chaos and resistance.
A presumption that using military power signified to friends and foes that Washington was getting serious about a problem
diminished the role of diplomats and diplomacy. " 'Getting serious' also implied a preference for uniforms over suits as the principal
agents of U.S. policy," Bacevich writes. "Henceforth, rather than military power serving as the handmaiden of diplomacy, the reverse
would be true."
In another repeated mistake, triumphalist American commanders prematurely declare victory without realizing that their opponent
has simply withdrawn to fight another day as a guerrilla force, as occurred in Afghanistan in 2001. They also personalize the enemy,
wrongly assuming that the removal of figures like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi will instantly end conflict.
From Somalia in 1993 to Yemen today, American commanders and policy makers overestimated the advantage American military technology
bestows on them. And most crucially of all, the United States has failed to decide whether it is, in fact, at war.
"In the war for the greater Middle East, the United States chose neither to contain nor to crush, instead charting a course
midway in between," Bacevich writes. "Instead of intimidating, U.S. military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated
a lack of both competence and determination." The historical forces at work in the Middle East are different from the dynamics
that led to American victories in World War II and the Cold War. American officials have failed to understand that. What's more,
a deluded Washington foreign policy establishment believes that an American way of life based on "consumption and choice" will be
accepted over time in the "Islamic world."
But it is here, in his description of the "Islamic world," that Bacevich stumbles. What is missing in this book about "the greater
Middle East" are the people of the greater Middle East. Bacevich's most highly developed Muslim character in these pages is Saddam
Hussein. The former Afghan president Hamid Karzai is a distant second. Beyond those two, the rest of the world's estimated 1.6 billion
Muslims come across as two-dimensional caricatures.
And so Bacevich lumps together vastly different nationalities - from Bosnians to Iraqis to Somalis - often referring to all of
them primarily as "Muslims." The dizzying complexities of each country's history, politics, culture, resources and rivalries are
missing. And when it comes to how "Muslims" view the world, Bacevich veers into the simplistic essentialism that he accuses Washington
policy makers of following.
Bacevich suggests that in the "Islamic world" lifestyles based on "consumption and choice" might not work. Such broad-brush statements
might well be considered simplistic and even bigoted if applied to other faiths. Can one contend that a "Christian world," "Hindu
world" or "Jewish world" exists? Are such generalizations analytically useful? Do the world's hundreds of millions of Muslims practice
their faith identically?
As a result of this essentialism, Bacevich glosses over a vital point about the Middle East today: A historic and brutal struggle
between radicals and modernists for the future of the region is underway. One can argue that the United States has no place in that
fight, but making sweeping generalizations about Muslims as Bacevich does limits our understanding of the forces at work in the region.
It also plays into the hands of extremists who seek to divide the world by faith.
In the most troubling passage of the book, Bacevich breezily questions pluralism itself. "According to one of the prevailing shibboleths
of the present age, this commingling of cultures is inherently good," he writes. "It fosters pluralism, thereby enriching everyday
life. Yet cultural interaction also induces friction, whether spontaneously generated or instigated by demagogues and provocateurs."
We do live in a dangerous world, but it is also an inevitably interconnected one. The commingling of cultures cannot be stopped.
Nor should it be.
For all that, Bacevich is right that the United States' reflexive use of armed intervention in the Middle East is folly. An
unquestioning faith in military might and an underinvestment in diplomacy has tied Washington in a policy straitjacket. Bacevich's
call for Americans to rethink their nation's militarized approach to the Middle East is incisive, urgent and essential.
David Rohde is the national security investigations editor for Reuters and a contributing editor for The Atlantic.
Widespread anti-American sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism. It's just another 'divide
and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the global
so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs.
Notable quotes:
"... For all the haters of us ugly Americans, just remember that we at this blog are suffering in our country standing up for the truth, pitted against our neighbors, coworkers, and friends in the arena of political debate and decrying the massive injustice of our foreign aggression. ..."
"... The world knows the military industrial complex that has worked over years, and year to create the ugly tentacles throughout what was once our government has been usurped. Dollars. All these bastards see is dollars. Not human life. Not the potential of that lost life in science, math, technology. Just dollars. ..."
"... or heavens sakes the voters in Arizona returned the worst of ALL Warmongers to Congress. ..."
"... We can't even get the voters to learn that their votes equal WAR pushed by both Parties they are aligned with. Get real. Our challenge is yours. Help us! ..."
"... I know there are many highly intelligent Americans, who are already today suffering and paying a price. And I agree that (widespread) anti-American sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism. It's just another 'divide and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the global so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs. ..."
"... Playing groups of people against one another is the oldest domination trick in the world, but it seems to work every single time...sad! ;-) ..."
"... I'm from California. Technically the USA. My take on things is we United States of Americans are exceptional. Most of us are exceptionally ignorant and violent. That is exceptionally sad. ..."
For all the haters of us ugly Americans, just remember that we at this blog are suffering in our country standing up for the
truth, pitted against our neighbors, coworkers, and friends in the arena of political debate and decrying the massive injustice
of our foreign aggression.
I won't call ya out by name, but lumping us forlorn sacks into your "untouchable" category reeks of reactionary arrogance that
is, to pay patrons at this fine blog their due, beneath you.
In the mean time, American issues = issues concerning the empire they we all want to see destroyed. Liberating Americans should
also be on your wish list.
The world knows the military industrial complex that has worked over years, and year to create the ugly tentacles throughout
what was once our government has been usurped. Dollars. All these bastards see is dollars. Not human life. Not the potential of
that lost life in science, math, technology. Just dollars.
For heavens sakes the voters in Arizona returned the worst of ALL Warmongers to Congress. And you, the World, think
for a moment we, citizens in this colony, have a snowball's chance in hell reeling these creatures in all by ourselves are sorely
mistaken.
We can't even get the voters to learn that their votes equal WAR pushed by both Parties they are aligned with. Get real. Our
challenge is yours. Help us!
I know there are many highly intelligent Americans, who are already today suffering and paying a price. And I agree that
(widespread) anti-American sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism. It's just another 'divide
and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the
global so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs.
Playing groups of people against one another is the oldest domination trick in the world, but it seems to work every single
time...sad! ;-)
I'm from California. Technically the USA. My take on things is we United States of Americans are exceptional. Most of us
are exceptionally ignorant and violent. That is exceptionally sad.
I am very glad to have found MoA and the crew of experts. I have learned so very much.
Big up b! Booyakah as they say in JA. God help us.
There are hardly any rational actors left in the Trump administration.
Rex Tillerson is a
joke and should have long done these bunch of crazies. Russia and China should join forces
and should tell Trump and his Ziocon backers what is at stake if they attack Syria or Iran.
Nikki Haley is the mouthpiece of the Zionist regime and tried to make Colin Powell. If the
US-Zionist and the Saudi regime attack Iran, at least the Zionist regime and the decadent
Saudi one will be doomed. The US should adjust itself to more coffins from the Middle East
and Afghanistan.
Just recently I watched an interview with Security adviser McMasters on BBC,
and I could not believe the nonsense this guy was saying about Iran, Hezbollah et cetera. He
is very dangerous. Such a policy advice is not rational but insane.
There are hardly any rational actors left in the Trump administration.
Rex Tillerson is a
joke and should have long done these bunch of crazies. Russia and China should join forces
and should tell Trump and his Ziocon backers what is at stake if they attack Syria or Iran.
Nikki Haley is the mouthpiece of the Zionist regime and tried to make Colin Powell. If the
US-Zionist and the Saudi regime attack Iran, at least the Zionist regime and the decadent
Saudi one will be doomed. The US should adjust itself to more coffins from the Middle East
and Afghanistan.
Just recently I watched an interview with Security adviser McMasters on BBC,
and I could not believe the nonsense this guy was saying about Iran, Hezbollah et cetera. He
is very dangerous. Such a policy advice is not rational but insane.
"... Russia know Erogan is only the meganomania fool puppet. A Russia counterstrike will activate NATO obligation. So Putin ingeniously bring Turkey to his side, finished off terrorists, have whole Syria, Iran & Hezbollah so indebted, perpetual base in Syria, showcase Russia weapons and power, take high moral ground to raise Russia status in world stage as indispensable leader of Middle East, that's true Art of War -- Winning everything at least cost. Humiliating US is the biggest revenge. ..."
Saker, this article has only general facts without your usual sharp analysis. It even
contradict your own previous NK war analysis. Has Crazy Trumps & his WH really
disheartened you so much? But some said Trumps is godsend, he has bared all US(Nato &
Israel too) hypocrisy, destroying whole US in every aspects, either intentionally to
reconstruct the ultra corrupted & manipulated US, or unintentionally hasten the empire
collapse. Cheer up, look at the bright side like China, they are very positive about
Trumps(he only love $, not war).
1. Afghanistan: Yes nothing will happen, unless US attack Russia army in Syria,
then this will be one hot spot that Russia can heat up by equipping whoever(Taliban) to
inflict heavy casualties for US.
The rockets attacked in Afghanistan airport during US Defense Secretary Mad Dog visit is
to sent a very clear warning signal to US incharged, what Russia can pay back for the death
of its General in Syria? To kill a few generals won't scare off Mattis, this will.
2. Syria: Russia has been very restraint to avoid direct conflict with US even
under attacked. This emboldened US & Nato. So its likely US/Israel will conduct some air
raids or missiles attack on SAA, Iran, Hezbollah, but no suicidal ground attack with these
war harden formidable fighters.
3. Russia: Swift & Assets freeze -- Russia already has its own clearing system
set up for this. China got its warning from WH too. When US did that to Russia, the world
will hasten the Petrol dollar replacement with Yuan. So its unlikely US like it, unless
direct war break out.
Shoot down Russia plane? Not likely, Syria plane Yes -- Recent Su35 chasing off F22 showed
US is just a paper tiger. S400 can bring down some US birds too in return. Come to direct
conflict, Russia is fully capable to inflict greater damage to many US bases in Middle East
with missiles. So US can only continue using its "moderate" terrorists to harass but not
shoot down Russia plane directly.
There is probably agreement in place, No SAM equipment to terrorists(ISIS hasn't got any
SAM in entire Syria war), as it can threaten US too when moderates switch camp. Certainly
Israel know Russia has no lack of SAM to equip Hezbollah as a return courtesy.
That's right, when Putin failed to direct attack Turkey after its Su24 is shot down, it
emboldened US Nato. But Putin is a cold Grand chess player. He won't let a impulse lost his
entire game. Sure he had exacted the revenge later. As a starter, he had the entire Turkey's
Uyghur Turks terrorists army that killed the pilot carpet bombed, making Turkey Erogan
thumping chest. Doubt US want its whole terrorists with its embedded Special force get carpet
bombed yet.
Russia know Erogan is only the meganomania fool puppet. A Russia counterstrike will
activate NATO obligation. So Putin ingeniously bring Turkey to his side, finished off
terrorists, have whole Syria, Iran & Hezbollah so indebted, perpetual base in Syria,
showcase Russia weapons and power, take high moral ground to raise Russia status in world
stage as indispensable leader of Middle East, that's true Art of War -- Winning everything at
least cost. Humiliating US is the biggest revenge.
4. Iran May be more than tearing off Nuclear deal, Trumps is all in with Israel. So
everything is possible, including US limited missiles attack to Iran to fulfil Israel wish,
but not full scale war which need much preparation.
5. Ukraine US sure love to escalate this proxy war to suck in Russia for full scale
war. Its depends whether Ukraine will get force into this bloody shit hole . which is very
likely with its manipulated leaders.
6. Korea War No war, all hot air, as your last analysis shown its gonna too bloody
for US to contemplate. Biggest factor is Russia and China behind, not about $. US knew too
well in Vietnam war and previous Korea war. FB has some good analysis in this.
Myanmar is certainly a cakewalk, but why for last 50 years US didn't attempt to attack for
its tremendous rich unexplored resources? Its the China factor.
7. Venezuela This is the easiest sweetest soft target for Trumps if he ever need a
war. Army is weak. There is no China Russia next door factor. And it has the world largest
oil to pay. At the same time can destroy China and Russia dominant investments like Libya
case, also removing their present at its backyard. Venezuela is what US capable to bully, not
Iran or DPRK.
This is a classic example of
flip-flop policy. In November, the US
promised
Turkey
to stop arming Kurdish militias in Syria after the Islamic State was routed. Brett McGurk, the US Special Presidential
Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State, explained that after the urban fighting in Raqqa was over
"adjustments in the level of military support" would be made. "We had to give some equipment – and it's limited, extremely
limited – all of which was very transparent to our NATO ally, Turkey," he
said
during
a special briefing on December 21. In June, the US
told
Turkey
it would take back weapons supplied to the Kurdish the People's Protection Units (YPG) militia in northern Syria after the
defeat of Islamic State.
But sophisticated weapons will continue to be sent to Syria in 2018, including thousands of anti-tank rocket launchers,
heat seeking missiles and rocket launchers. The list of weaponry and equipment was prepared by US Department of Defense as
part of the 2018 defense budget and signed by Trump of Dec. 12. It includes more than 300 non-tactical vehicles, 60
nonstandard vehicles, and 30 earth-moving vehicles to assist with the construction of outposts or operations staging areas.
The US defense spending bill for 2018 ("Justification for FY 2018 Overseas Contingency Operations / Counter-Islamic State
of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund") includes providing weapons worth $393 million to US partners in Syria. Overall,
$500 million, roughly $70 million more than last year, are to be spent on Syria Train and Equip requirements. The partners
are the Kurds-dominated Syria Democratic Forces (SDF). The YPG – the group that is a major concern of Turkey – is the
backbone of this force.
The budget does not refer to Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) but instead says "Vetted Syrian Opposition". According to the
budget list, there are 25,000 opposition forces supported as a part of the train and equip program in Syria. That number is
planned to be increased to 30,000 in 2018. The arming of Kurdish militants with
anti-tank
rockets
is a sensitive topic because of Turkey's reliance on its armored Leopard tanks in northern Syria.
Talal Sillo, a former high-ranking commander and spokesperson of the US-backed SDF, who defected from the group last month
to go to Turkey,
divulged
details
of the US arming the Kurdish group.
The list does not detail which vetted Syrian groups will receive certain pieces of equipment. In northern Syria, there is
the SDF, including the YPG, and the Syria Arab Coalition -- a group of Arab fighters incorporated into the SDF. The Maghawir
al-Thawra and Shohada al-Quartayn groups are operating in the southeastern part of Syria. They are being trained by US and
British instructors at the al-Tanf border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
Besides the SDF and the groups trained at al-Tanf, the US is in the process of
creating
the
New Syria Army to fight the Syrian government forces. The training is taking place at the Syrian Hasakah refugee camp
located 70 kilometers from the border of Turkey and 50 kilometers from the border of Iraq.
Around 40 Syria opposition groups on Dec. 25 rejected to attend the planned
Sochi
conference on Syria
scheduled to take place in January. They said Moscow, which organizes the conference, was seeking
to bypass the UN-based Geneva peace process, despite the fact that UN Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura said that Russia's
plan to convene the congress should be assessed by its ability to contribute to and support the UN-led Geneva talks on
ending the war in Syria. If fighting starts, these groups are likely to join the formations created by the US.
So, the United States not only maintains its
illegal
military
presence in Syria and creates new forces to fight against the Syrian government, it appears to be preparing for a new war
to follow the Islamic State's defeat. The continuation of arming and training Kurdish militias will hardly improve
Washington's relations with Ankara, while saying one thing and doing another undermines the credibility of the United
States as a partner.
"... For now, the Iranian's Trump-tautning has remained unanswered. The problem is that if Iran continues to dare the US, and its new regional allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, now that there is a regional axis meant to "contain" Iran by any means necessary, it won't take much for the US, and especially Israel, to respond accordingly." ..."
"... The more desperate the establishment grows, the more rabid it will turn. For those, for whom cannot be what can't be, devastating times lie ahead. The polarization of the planet has reached a new dimension. ..."
"Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on Thursday that US forces must leave all of
Syria. Speaking to Interfax news agency, Lavrov stated that the UN Security Council has not
approved the work of the United States and its coalition in Syria, nor has been invited by the
legitimate Syrian government.
Concerning a prior statement by US Defense Secretary James Matisse voicing the intent for US
troops to stay in Syria until achieving progress in a political settlement, Lavrov pointed out
that such statement is "surprising" because it means that Washington reserves the right to
determine such progress and wants to maintain control over parts of Syrian territory in order
to achieve the result it wants."
Well, it took also the "casuality" that the Russian Syrian base of Hmeimim was attacked by
missiles launched by terrorists today...Of course, not only St. Petersburg, but the world is
wide and huge...but, eventhough, I think that all these "terrorist attacks" are related...to
the current insistence by Russian officials on US troops leaving Syria asap....
Sometime ZH has news that is portrayed more in a propaganda manner than other times or
authors...whatever. That said the link and quotes below show how the ME rhetoric is marching
along
"One month after we reported that Israel would take the unprecedented step of sharing
intelligence with Saudi Arabia as the two countries ramped up efforts to curb what they
perceive as "Iranian expansion" in the region, on Thursday Israel's Channel 10 reported that
Israel has also pivoted to the US and reached a similar plan to counter Iranian activity in
the Middle East. As Axios adds, U.S. and Israeli officials said the joint understandings were
reached in "a secret meeting" between senior Israeli and U.S. delegations at the White House
on December 12th."
"Meanwhile, apparently unconcerned by the Saudi-Israeli-US axis that has formed to contain his
nation, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that US President
Donald Trump would fail in his hardened stance towards Iran, saying Tehran is stronger than
during the time of Ronald Reagan.
"Reagan was more powerful and smarter than Trump, and he was a better actor in making
threats, and he also moved against us and they shot down our plane,"
Khamenei said in a
speech carried on state television.
For now, the Iranian's Trump-tautning has remained unanswered. The problem is that if Iran
continues to dare the US, and its new regional allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, now that there
is a regional axis meant to "contain" Iran by any means necessary, it won't take much for the
US, and especially Israel, to respond accordingly."
Beat those drums! Beat those drums! There must be a war for Trump to be a Real US
President and cover for the posturing of the other two "new"(grin) regional allies.
My hope is that instead of a war, Trump gets to oversee the US default on the national
debt, which he has some experience with personally. That would be the precipitation event for
the new Bretton Woods agreement about global finance going forward.
What is the next chapter in this story and is everyone fearful enough yet?
For many, that has not been a serious question for a very long time. The answer reveals,
that the umpire has only two possible exit strategies. One is that start WW3 and the other
one is actually not a strategy - only an exit from the world.
Pretty much everybody is no longer wearing clothes. The naked truth is for all decent
people to see. The implosion is underway and can no longer be averted. The only question that
remains is how many lives will be lost/wasted and how many can be saved.
The more desperate the establishment grows, the more rabid it will turn. For those, for
whom cannot be what can't be, devastating times lie ahead. The polarization of the planet has
reached a new dimension.
And yes, I am convinced that the inability to post and glitches when typing have nothing
to do with b. or this website, but everything to do with the manipulation of the internet and
all it's users.
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only
Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest
pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential
consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other
nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be
true.
On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits
derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing
as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but
unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.
The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of
generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The
beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:
"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength,
confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty,
and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of
our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the
vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to
partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."
One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents,
particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's
decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his
response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief
to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false
narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans
safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the
economy.
The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and
it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme
hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests,
attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies
less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to
repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to
destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."
A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written
report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of
America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions
and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness
to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its
neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of
offensive capabilities."
Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone
is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is
the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump
approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from
Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.
And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant
preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist
organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the
cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin
Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it
was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might
well dispute.
So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of
the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump
might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to
strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated,
something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe
they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how
Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to
get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way
of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United
States.
Quite the week of Ancient History here the last few days, what with Lesbians torn between the
Spartans and the Athenians (!) and the daddy of Western lawgivers, Solon, has snuck in.
Seems (selon Solon as they'll be saying at Charlie Hebdo) that those cuddly White Helmets
really ARE good guys in the parallel universe Guardian readers are thought to inhabit. The
Russians done calumnify those latter day saints.
Ah, the pain of these folk in the MSM as they experience losing control of the narrative ..we
should be more understanding and compassionate. I also love the conjugation of the Guardian's
irregular verbs we are independent, impartial journalists who are experts on Syria because we
talk only to those people who share our views, you are a mere blogger, they, being courageous
folk like Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett who've actually been to Syria and talked to people
outside the western bubble are Assad and Putin stooges.
India was naughty as well and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley ought to have taken the Indian
ambassador's name down as well. Maybe she'll even declare she won't ever set foot in India
again. Her relatives there will breathe sighs of relief!
"... America has lost moral grounds. Its propaganda machine is falling apart exposing America as an international outlaw ..."
"... America is in a situation when it cannot wage an open full-scale war and it cannot negotiate anything. For example, a war with N. Korea potentially will be an extremely bloody for America with totally unpredictable consequences and, at the same time, America cannot negotiate anything since, in a case of Iran, Trump stated that he did not give a shit to any negotiated agreements. ..."
"... Trump vision of making America great is to be a greater lackey of Israel and by impoverishing the America middle class by enriching his lenders on the Wall Street. ..."
" there are many vacancies, which has opened the door to eager neoconservative-leaning
nominal Republicans to re-enter government . At the State Department Brian Hook of the
neocon John
Hay Initiative is now chief of policy planning, courtesy of Margaret Peterlin,
Tillerson's chief of staff. They have recently hired David Feith , the son of the infamous
Pentagon Office of Special Plans head Doug Feith , to head the Asia desk. And Wes Mitchell
, whose policies are largely indistinguishable from his predecessor, has replaced Victoria
Nuland as Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs . While Elliot Abrams,
Eliot Cohen, the Kagans and other prominent neocons have been blocked, second-tier
activists carrying less political baggage have quietly been brought in . "
" The unfortunate Donald Trump Administration decision to recognize Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel serves no visible American interest , in spite of what some of the
always-loyal-to-Israel punditry has been suggesting. Israel is already moving to exploit
the situation in its usual fashion . Immediately after the announcement was made, Israeli
Ambassador in Washington Ron Dermer suggested
that the decision on Jerusalem could now be extended to include other disputed areas,
most particularly Syria's Golan Heights that were occupied in 1967"
" Nothing good will come out of the Trump decision as the situation in the region is
already starting to unravel. The Turks are talking about opening an Embassy to Palestine in
East Jerusalem and the 56 other Muslim countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
might follow suit."
The perfect example of the present state of American "morality". We are paying you off to
agree with us and if not we will take our ball and go home. And as for Haley's comment that
"This is what the American people want and is the right thing to do", when were the American
people ever asked and who says it is the right thing to do other than neocons?
Sanctions and Miltary intervention is the sum total of US foreign policy. Is it any wonder
that the Chinese are winning friends and making inroads around the world by engaging in quiet
diplomacy and reaching win/win investment solutions with no political demands made on the
host country.
The Trump's foreign policies are a total catastrophe:
America has lost moral grounds. Its propaganda machine is falling apart exposing
America as an international outlaw
America is in a situation when it cannot wage an open full-scale war and it cannot
negotiate anything. For example, a war with N. Korea potentially will be an extremely
bloody for America with totally unpredictable consequences and, at the same time, America
cannot negotiate anything since, in a case of Iran, Trump stated that he did not give a
shit to any negotiated agreements.
Trump vision of making America great is to be a greater lackey of Israel and by
impoverishing the America middle class by enriching his lenders on the Wall Street.
IIRC from my international affairs classes, the UN was always a rubber stamp for American
interests. Every "international" organization was like this. Now, we see the tables are
turning and we might end up ditching these organizations as the Empire no longer controls
them.
Look back at the Korean War. Originally, the loss of sovereignty was meant to be an MIC
rubber stamp, to commit the US to war while going around Congress. In other words, the UN was
the MIC's rubber stamp to approve whatever it wanted, without Congressional approval, and
without making American politicians bear the burden of guilt.
Stop right there trollie .... the ONLY outrageous challenge to US "sovereignty" is the
Zionist talmudist ethnocentric chosenites who have their "dual"-citizens
pulling the strings on US foreign policy:
"Neoconservative Douglas Feith writes a position paper entitled "A Strategy for Israel."
Feith proposes that Israel re-occupy "the areas under Palestinian Authority control" even
though "the price in blood would be high." [Commentary, 9/1997; American Conservative,
3/24/2003; In These Times, 3/13/2007] Feith is the co-author of the 1996 position paper "A
Clean Break" (see July 8, 1996), which advocates a similar aggressive posture for
Israel."
"January 30, 2001: First National Security Council Meeting Focuses on Iraq and Israel, Not
Terrorism.
The Bush White House holds its first National Security Council meeting. The focus is on Iraq
and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...But Bush isn't interested in terrorism...Instead, Bush
channels his neoconservative advisers, particularly incoming Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz... in taking a new approach to Middle East affairs, particularly the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
Rice begins noting "that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region."...Bush orders
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton to
begin preparing options for the use of US ground forces in Iraq's northern and southern
no-fly zones in support of a native-based insurgency against the Hussein regime..."Meeting
adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq...
"US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, later recalls: "From the very beginning, there
was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. From the
very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this
regime...officials never questioned the logic behind this policy. No one ever asked, "Why
Saddam?" and "Why now?" Instead, the issue that needed to be resolved was how this could be
accomplished. "It was all about finding a way to do it," O'Neill will explain. "That was the
tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'""
"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of
ground forces..."These were the policies that even the Israeli right had not dared to
implement." One senior administration official says after the meeting, "The Likudniks are
really in charge now."..."
"Shortly After September 11, 2001: Pentagon Officials Wolfowitz and Feith Set Up Counter
Terrorism Evaluation Group"
"Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith set up a secret
intelligence unit, named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG -- sometimes called the
Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group), to sift through raw intelligence reports and look
for evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda... George Packer will later describe their
process, writing, "Wurmser and Maloof were working deductively, not inductively: The premise
was true; facts would be found to confirm it."...Critics claim that its members manipulate
and distort intelligence, "cherry-picking" bits of information that support their
preconceived conclusions... They were cherry-picking intelligence and packaging it for [Vice
President] Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld to take to the president. That's
the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent."...A defense official
later adds, "There is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the Defense Department
and the intelligence community, to include its own Defense Intelligence Agency. Wolfowitz and
company disbelieve any analysis that doesn't support their own preconceived conclusions. The
CIA is enemy territory, as far are they're concerned."... For weeks, the unit will attempt to
uncover evidence tying Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, a theory advocated by both Feith
and Wolfowitz..."
"The rest of the US intelligence community is not impressed with CTEG's work. "I don't
have any problem with [the Pentagon] bringing in a couple of people to take another look at
the intelligence and challenge the assessment," former DIA analyst Patrick Lang will later
say. "But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals,
people were brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were going
to get."..."
"Dismissing CIA's Findings that Iraq, al-Qaeda are Not Linked... In CTEG's view, policy
makers should overlook any equivocations and discrepancies and dismiss the CIA's guarded
conclusions: "[T]he CIA report ought to be read for content only -- and CIA's interpretation
ought to be ignored." Their decision is powered by Wolfowitz, who has instructed them to
ignore the intelligence community's view that al-Qaeda and Iraq were doubtful allies. They
also embrace the theory that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi official in
Prague, a theory discredited by intelligence professionals..."
"The group is later accused of stovepiping intelligence directly to the White House. Lang
later tells the Washington Times: "That unit had meetings with senior White House officials
without the CIA or the Senate being aware of them. That is not legal. There has to be
oversight." According to Lang and another US intelligence official, the two men go to the
White House several times to brief officials, bypassing CIA analysts whose analyses they
disagreed with..."
For those how do not want to read the article I've linked to these quotes let me highlight
a few passages (apologies in advance as someone replied to my previous article so I could not
do it prior):
"Neoconservative Douglas Feith writes a position paper entitled " A Strategy for Israel ."
Feith proposes that Israel re-occupy "the areas under Palestinian Authority control" even
though "the price in blood would be high." [Commentary, 9/1997; American Conservative,
3/24/2003; In These Times, 3/13/2007] Feith is the co-author of the 1996 position paper " A
Clean Break " (see July 8, 1996), which advocates a similar aggressive posture for
Israel."
" January 30, 2001 : First National Security Council Meeting Focuses on Iraq and Israel,
Not Terrorism
The Bush White House holds its first National Security Council meeting. The focus is on
Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...But Bush isn't interested in terrorism
...Instead, Bush channels his neoconservative advisers, particularly incoming Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz... in taking a new approach to Middle East affairs, particularly the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
Rice begins noting "that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region."...Bush
orders Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh
Shelton to begin preparing options for the use of US ground forces in Iraq's northern and
southern no-fly zones in support of a native-based insurgency against the Hussein
regime..."Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq ...
"US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, later recalls: "From the very beginning, there
was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. From the
very first instance, it was about Iraq . It was about what we can do to change this
regime...officials never questioned the logic behind this policy . No one ever asked, "Why
Saddam?" and "Why now?" Instead, the issue that needed to be resolved was how this could be
accomplished. " It was all about finding a way to do it ," O'Neill will explain. "That was
the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'""
"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use
of ground forces ..."These were the policies that even the Israeli right had not dared to
implement." One senior administration official says after the meeting, "The Likudniks are
really in charge now."..."
"Shortly After September 11, 2001: Pentagon Officials Wolfowitz and Feith Set Up Counter
Terrorism Evaluation Group"
"Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith set up a secret
intelligence unit, named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG -- sometimes called the
Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group), to sift through raw intelligence reports and look
for evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda... George Packer will later describe their
process, writing, "Wurmser and Maloof were working deductively, not inductively: The premise
was true; facts would be found to confirm it ."...Critics claim that its members manipulate
and distort intelligence, "cherry-picking" bits of information that support their
preconceived conclusions... They were cherry-picking intelligence and packaging it for [Vice
President] Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld to take to the president. That's
the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent. "...A defense official
later adds, "There is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the Defense Department
and the intelligence community, to include its own Defense Intelligence Agency. Wolfowitz and
company disbelieve any analysis that doesn't support their own preconceived conclusions . The
CIA is enemy territory, as far are they're concerned."... For weeks, the unit will attempt to
uncover evidence tying Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, a theory advocated by both Feith
and Wolfowitz..."
"The rest of the US intelligence community is not impressed with CTEG's work. "I don't
have any problem with [the Pentagon] bringing in a couple of people to take another look at
the intelligence and challenge the assessment," former DIA analyst Patrick Lang will later
say. "But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals
, people were brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were
going to get ."..."
"Dismissing CIA's Findings that Iraq, al-Qaeda are Not Linked... In CTEG's view, policy
makers should overlook any equivocations and discrepancies and dismiss the CIA's guarded
conclusions: "[T]he CIA report ought to be read for content only -- and CIA's interpretation
ought to be ignored." Their decision is powered by Wolfowitz, who has instructed them to
ignore the intelligence community's view that al-Qaeda and Iraq were doubtful allies . They
also embrace the theory that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi official in
Prague, a theory discredited by intelligence professionals..."
"The group is later accused of stovepiping intelligence directly to the White House . Lang
later tells the Washington Times: " That unit had meetings with senior White House officials
without the CIA or the Senate being aware of them . That is not legal . There has to be
oversight." According to Lang and another US intelligence official, the two men go to the
White House several times to brief officials, bypassing CIA analysts whose analyses they
disagreed with ..."
Oh, that's right. Bill Clinton and the Democrats NEVER condoned regime change in Iraq.
Just like they NEVER proposed accepting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The UN is Washington's most powerfull tool to keep the rest of the world in check.
And because Washington wants to preserve the global status quo (which has been constructed
to Washington's advantage), the UN is not allowed to do "anything productive".
As a Gringo, you should be damn content with the UN, because Washington's control over the
UN facilitates your luxurious Gringo-lifestyle.
But you can't have it all: AND a luxurious Gringo-lifestyle AND the applause of the rest
of the world.
UN, IMF and World Bank are just the three pillars on which the neo-colonial US-empire is
built.
Most of the world would wish to be liberated from you Gringos,but you don't even realize
what you're wishing for, because you've never looked beyond your home-town, next month's pay
check or thought about what happened longer than a week ago.
"Could we just finally leave the UN now? Or are we waiting for them to finally like
us?"
Yes! Please! Leave! Go with god, but go!
I think it's long over due to move the UN out of New York to any-place-is-better. To be
blackmailed by its xenofobic USA-host, is just unacceptably lethal to a plurinational
institution like the UN.
Maybe the Crimea Peninsula would be a rather suitable place: it's more central for most of
the rest of the world and Russia is a much more respectful and hospitable host.
To be rid of the two most murderous rogue states of the UN, would make life so much easier
for the rest of the world. Without the USA and Israel, the UN would be able to advance with
leaps on a laundry list of bogged down global problems.
I'm quite sure that within a few years of voluntary isolation, the USA and Israel would
come back, begging to be atmitted again to the UN. But of course, the USA would not get back
its veto right in the Security Counsil anymore.
While its populist to shit post the UN, many here are smarter than that. Likely you
appreciate this may be the first signs of the great pivot East. Putin & Xi Jingping will
be crunching their popcorn with interest at this, if not cackling down the phone to each
other. US may well save on its UN subscriptions if this course is pursued, the end result
will be UN HQ will move, not to Switzerland, but to Bejing and with it American isolationism
in a way thats not been experienced since the great depression. More than anything else, the
US needs foreign trade, and that calls for engagement.
The disturbing part is why choose now to recognise Jerusalem? What exactly has Israel done
for the US? Dance on some rooftops while WTC came down? Caused havoc to most of her
neighbors? Schemed and conived to set one neighbor against another.
The Don knew this would sit badly abroad, possibly it's linked with some push back against
Putin in Syria, and to tell Iraq how pissed he is they rained on the Kurdish State parade.
Likely it includes some MIC trade off to pull CiA dogs off his back??? IDK - but it will
forment more dissent in Middle East, and since that's where much of the world's oil & gas
still comes from, we'll all feel the hit.
It seems an action more guided by the Generals? and whilst US does have a formidable
military to add leverage to decisions, it's military infrastructure was built in the cold
war. Much of it in need of replacement:
Stop overthinking. This is nothing more than a campaign funding promise to Sheldon Adelson
and his conservative Isreali-American Council (note which name appears first). $50+ million
to his campaign, $5 million to inauguration.
Some even think the Las Vegas shooting (Adelson owns Las Vegas) was a not so subtle signal
to Trump to get on with it or more events like it would happen.
Canada's entire economic system is so incredibly connected to the USA that it is to a
great extent dependent on a happy and prosperous USA. The last thing Canada needs right now
(since the country already has an embarrassing buffoon as a leader) is to upset the US.
To abstain was their only option, especially since it was known that it would make no
difference in the vote. So it was the wise choice. It had little to do with dumbass
Trudeau.
"... The supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US media and in certain think tanks/pressure groups, even five minutes of googling produced this: ..."
@Art
Deco US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire"
supposedly being created and threatening US allies in the mideast since you seem to put great
trust in their credibility, shouldn't that concern you?
Personally I think those fears are exaggerated, but how can it be denied that Iran's
influence has increased a lot in recent years and that the removal of Saddam's regime
facilitated that development?
Iranian revolutionary guards and Iranian-backed Shia militias operate in Iraq, the Iraqi
government maintains close ties to Iran, and Iran is also an active participant in the Syrian
civil war would that have been conceivable like this before 2003?
The supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US media
and in certain think tanks/pressure groups, even five minutes of googling produced
this:
Obviously I don't want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, though imo US policy in this
regard has been rather counter-productive recently.
Regarding the Iraq war, it's probably pointless to continue the discussion, if you want to
continue regarding it as a great idea, I won't argue with you.
And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher
who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified, so I don't
think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool). But Iraq was just too much, too much
obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard not to feel that there was
something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if they were gullible
enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning point in the
evolution of my political views.
The common factor amongst you, reiner and myself here is that none of us come from a
dogmatically anti-American background or personal world-view, nor from a dogmatically
pacifist one.
As I've probably noted here previously, I grew up very pro-American and very pro-NATO in
the late Cold War, and as a strong supporter of Thatcher and Reagan. I saw the fall of the
Soviet Union as a glorious triumph and a vindication of all the endless arguments against
anti-American lefties and CND numpties. I also strongly supported the Falklands War (the last
genuinely justified and intelligent war fought by my country, imo) and also the war against
Iraq in 1990/1, though I'm a little less certain on that one nowadays. I'm significantly
older than you both, it seems, however, and it was watching US foreign policy in the 1990s,
culminating in the Kosovo war, that convinced me that the US is now the problem and not the
solution.
When the facts changed, I changed my opinion.
So I was a war or two ahead of you, chronologically, because I'm older, but we've
travelled pretty much the same road. Our views on America have been created by US foreign
policy choices.
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016
election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown
affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and
Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact,
they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US
government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama
such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls
of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner
of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make
their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is
roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of
post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or
government contractor jobs.
As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to
the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:
"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE
congress....And F Trump."
You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is
comprised of creatures of the state.
Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the
Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite
trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected
to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of
officialdom in the Imperial City.
But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's
ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed
by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial
City.
That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at
best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early
days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that
it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.
But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State
into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz,
for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much
different.
No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things
that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.
First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his
sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the
world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.
That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable
maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good
works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic,
bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.
Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the
Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully
pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the
unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its
continuation.
Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would
sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless
tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting
and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe
and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.
Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To
wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most
certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)
By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an
orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the
Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and
economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly
heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.
In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country
and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's
permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and
the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which
the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.
It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an
"insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft
on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.
As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred
on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still
there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the
meeting:
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."
They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of
everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law
enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of
Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI
was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to
do with any kind of national security investigation.
For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and
the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that
virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting
with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely
untrue.
As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action
recently:
The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS.
Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from
prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began
to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele
on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate
attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general
(later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....
Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of
a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the
time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......
Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion
founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the
House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."
This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of
Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an
absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to
become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian
ambassador.
Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same
time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian
government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta
emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential
campaign.
As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief,
Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the
back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:
Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their
motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the
sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little
bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service]
officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call
you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because
they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.
Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo
and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with
Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August
2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.
Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of
Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright
laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was
one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in
a future Trump government.
Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no
foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy
advisory committee out of sheer desperation.
That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted
the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the
phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to
damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise
from watching TV!
The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied
his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime
and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually
consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor
relations at Rosneft.
Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged
bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other
officials in Trump Tower during September and October.
And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama
administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby
insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.
So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even
cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?
The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's
all they had!
Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75
billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital
intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.
Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election
campaign, that's all she wrote.
There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions
directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by
local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration
lists that could be sold.
The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting
machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election
machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to
waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.
In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an
election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and
their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by
independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made
any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.
And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the
election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue
messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun
control.
And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only
after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead,
this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark
Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator
on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.
In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked
the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network
of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.
Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William
Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded
them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download
speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote
location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only
via a local USB-connected thumb drive.
So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a
conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this
campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.
For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information
obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the
Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington
intelligence agencies.
In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the
post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in
Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the
president-elect's own national security advisor designate.
Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked
General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White
House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.
No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his
perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of
state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens
that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.
And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!
But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the
iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the
media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval
Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never
before.
Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the
tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.
In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever
imagined.
Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy -
kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the
underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go
about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the
texting...
Clue yourself in, David.
A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going
down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news
outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the
matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has
been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).
Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of
seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets
provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on
many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like
the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).
I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't
like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of
magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry-
we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.
When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a
megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.
Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led
to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see
mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions
at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber
world.
Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the
express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a
campaign
This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian
Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files
Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...
I disagree about the economy though.
It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the
makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.
We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another
neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment
bull in a China shop.
Surely Dave can see the potential.
It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.
For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck
did you think was gonna happen?
America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50
years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state
more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move
where they want.
Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober
judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping
on a major party candidate for president.
The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6
documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8
year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any
cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big
picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.
This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they
would play at this level.
As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his
gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how
Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into
packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?
David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!
Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700
thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a
Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.
So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first
then start building the gallows.
fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman
discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is
saying here.
One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:
If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national
level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a
pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but
a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to
for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to
put her on the map.
I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter
resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an
opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the
NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real
time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.
No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but
every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over,
China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market
collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every
fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me
persistent.
It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking
his thumb.
If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the
Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when
the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be
exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their
"insurance policy."
However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be
brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they
will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates?
?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance"
and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either – the nuances and subtleties of
it – the supposed "safeguards".
I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information
for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.
And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and
that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news"
– some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of
winning tic tac toe .
Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending
more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda – I think its time we have a real debate instead
of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)
If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement,
he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.
Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported
in the fakenews MSM.
Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh
yeah.
Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with
over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.
The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled
by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there,
detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part
of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after
finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump
sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors,
which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore
the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked,
angry, disturbed etc.
You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you
is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems
from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level
analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.
AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual
"I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.
The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist
and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out
2018. ..."
"... But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without
Trump and we are seeing it play out now. ..."
"... America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction. ..."
"... Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and
foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad"
than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no
intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being
slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all. ..."
"I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism
in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.
Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity. And it would be delightful, sobering,
and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following
through on their threats."
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19, 2017 11:10:32 AM | 14
Hell yes, I'd love that scenario, but never happen. Too much $to be made by kissing up to the empire.
Sad Canuck @ 31: Abso fukken 'lutely!!
b, you better change what you're smoken' if you believe the empire is going isolationist.
@48 They did not want him lol? So many comments in here make me chuckle.
Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure
Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch
out 2018.
But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with
or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
@26 "I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to disengage militarily from the rest of
the world, and put resources at work on domestic problems."
Disengage militarily? I would like to think so sleepy but why do they keep getting so involved internationally? Instead of
concentrating on domestic issues putting 'America first' seems to mean bullying any country that doesn't do what it's told.
@ Debsisdead with the end of his comment
" America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction.
"
There are those that say the same (vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink) about China, so there might be some competition
in our world yet.
I , for one, want to end private finance and maybe give the China way a go. Anyone else? I did future studies in college and
am intrigued by planning processes at the scale that China has done 13 of....their 5-year plans.
May we live to see structural change in the way our species comports itself......soon, I hope
NemesisCalling, I suggest paying little to know attention to Trump's (or any other politician/oligarch) platitudes.
Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic
and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's
"near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria,
and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and
corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by
all.
I remain amazed that people who KNOW that the MSM lies to us constantly, about things big and small, still believe with all
their hearts the MSM narrative that Trump is an "outsider" whom the Establishment hates and has fought against ever since they
gave him $5 billion in free advertising.
Disengage? In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around
the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command. That's around 75 percent of the nations
on the planet.
What the vast majority of Americans might want has been cast aside by this president after he got their votes. There go hope
and change again, damn.
"... We are the ones who have been fomenting destabilization all throughout the region some of whom would have been allies of the Saudis in some common cause. ..."
"... I think there are more effective choices concerning Yemen and Qatar. But figuring out what the choices are is not going to be easy. And harder still perhaps is implementing them. As for backfire -- we are just not in a position to judge, at the moment. Anyone hoping that another major state collapses in that region is probably miscalculating the value of instability. ..."
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) of
Saudi Arabia is the undoubted Middle East man of the year, but his great impact stems more
from his failures than his successes. He is accused of being Machiavellian in clearing his way
to the throne by the elimination of opponents inside and outside the royal family. But, when it
comes to Saudi Arabia's position in the world, his miscalculations remind one less of the
cunning manoeuvres of Machiavelli and more of the pratfalls of Inspector Clouseau.
Again and again, the impulsive and mercurial young prince has embarked on ventures abroad
that achieve the exact opposite of what he intended. When his father became king in early 2015,
he gave support to a rebel offensive in Syria that achieved some success but provoked
full-scale Russian military intervention, which in turn led to the victory of President Bashar
al-Assad. At about the same time, MbS launched Saudi armed intervention, mostly through
airstrikes, in the civil war in Yemen. The action was code-named Operation Decisive Storm, but
two and a half years later the war is still going on, has killed 10,000 people and brought at
least seven million Yemenis close to starvation.
The Crown Prince is focusing
Saudi foreign policy on aggressive opposition to Iran and its regional allies, but the
effect of his policies has been to increase Iranian influence. The feud with Qatar, in which
Saudi Arabia and the UAE play the leading role, led to a blockade being imposed five months
ago which is still going on. The offence of the Qataris was to have given support to al-Qaeda
type movements – an accusation that was true enough but could be levelled equally at
Saudi Arabia – and to having links with Iran. The net result of the anti-Qatari campaign
has been to drive the small but fabulously wealthy state further into the Iranian embrace.
Saudi relations with other countries used to be cautious, conservative and aimed at
preserving the status quo. But today its behaviour is zany, unpredictable and often
counterproductive: witness the bizarre episode in November when the Lebanese Prime Minister
Saad Hariri was summoned to Riyadh, not allowed to depart and forced to resign his position.
The objective of this ill-considered action on the part of Saudi Arabia was apparently to
weaken Hezbollah and Iran in Lebanon, but has in practice empowered both of them.
What all these Saudi actions have in common is that they are based on a naïve
presumption that "a best-case scenario" will inevitably be achieved. There is no "Plan B" and
not much of a "Plan A": Saudi Arabia is simply plugging into conflicts and confrontations it
has no idea how to bring to an end.
MbS and his advisers may imagine that it does not matter what Yemenis, Qataris or Lebanese
think because President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and chief Middle East
adviser, are firmly in their corner. "I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown
Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing," tweeted Trump in early November
after the round up and confinement of some 200 members of the Saudi elite. "Some of those they
are harshly treating have been 'milking' their country for years!" Earlier he had tweeted
support for the attempt to isolate Qatar as a supporter of "terrorism".
But Saudi Arabia is learning that support from the White House these days brings fewer
advantages than in the past. The attention span of Donald Trump is notoriously short, and his
preoccupation is with domestic US politics: his approval does not necessarily mean the approval
of other parts of the US government. The State Department and the Pentagon may disapprove of
the latest Trump tweet and seek to ignore or circumvent it. Despite his positive tweet, the US
did not back the Saudi confrontation with Qatar or the attempt to get Mr Hariri to resign as
prime minister of Lebanon.
For its part, the White House is finding out the limitations of Saudi power. MbS was not
able to get the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a US-sponsored peace plan that
would have given Israel very much and the Palestinians very little. The idea of a Saudi-Israeli
covert alliance against Iran may sound attractive to some Washington think tanks, but does not
make much sense on the ground. The assumption that Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel, and the promise to move the US embassy there, would have no long-term
effects on attitudes in the Middle East is beginning to look shaky.
It is Saudi Arabia – and not its rivals – that is becoming isolated. The
political balance of power in the region changed to its disadvantage over the last two years.
Some of this predates the elevation of MbS: by 2015 it was becoming clear that a combination of
Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey was failing to carry out regime change in
Damascus. This powerful grouping has fragmented, with Turkey and Qatar moving closer to the
Russian-backed Iranian-led axis, which is the dominant power in the northern tier of the Middle
East between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean.
If the US and Saudi Arabia wanted to do anything about this new alignment, they have left it
too late. Other states in the Middle East are coming to recognise that there are winners and
losers, and have no wish to be on the losing side. When President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called a
meeting this week in Istanbul of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, to which 57 Muslim
states belong, to reject and condemn the US decision on Jerusalem, Saudi Arabia only sent a
junior representative to this normally moribund organisation. But other state leaders like
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, King Abdullah of Jordan and the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar,
among many others, were present. They recognised East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and
demanded the US reverse its decision.
MbS is in the tradition of leaders all over the world who show Machiavellian skills in
securing power within their own countries. But their success domestically gives them an
exaggerated sense of their own capacity in dealing with foreign affairs, and this can have
calamitous consequences. Saddam Hussein was very acute in seizing power in Iraq but ruined his
country by starting two wars he could not win.
Mistakes made by powerful leaders are often explained by their own egomania and ignorance,
supplemented by flattering but misleading advice from their senior lieutenants. The first steps
in foreign intervention are often alluring because a leader can present himself as a national
standard bearer, justifying his monopoly of power at home. Such a patriotic posture is a
shortcut to popularity, but there is always a political bill to pay if confrontations and wars
end in frustration and defeat. MbS has unwisely decided that Saudi Arabia should play a more
active and aggressive role at the very moment that its real political and economic strength is
ebbing. He is overplaying his hand and making too many enemies.
The only hope someone as cloistered as a Saudi crown prince can have of being an effective
ruler is either by being an extraordinary person (very curious, love learning for its own
sake, etc), or be at least moderately intelligent, and listen to consensus.
For its part, the White House is finding out the limitations of Saudi power. MbS was not
able to get the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a US-sponsored peace plan that
would have given Israel very much and the Palestinians very little.
Lies and Jew-hatred. Everyone knows that despite their infamous sharpness in business
dealings, the world's longest history of legalism, a completely self-centered and
ethnocentric culture, and their longstanding abuse of the Palestinians, every single
deal the Jews try to sign with the Palestinians heavily favors the Palestinians, and the
only reason the Palestinians won't sign is because they're psychotic Jew-haters.
The idea of a Saudi-Israeli covert alliance against Iran may sound attractive to some
Washington think tanks, but does not make much sense on the ground. The assumption that
Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the promise to move the US
embassy there, would have no long-term effects on attitudes in the Middle East is beginning
to look shaky.
Hey, you skipped the part where you did anything to support the idea that a Zionist-Saudi
alliance doesn't make sense.
K, let's all wait for Art Deco to come in and spew some Hasbara then tell us he's not a
Zhid.
{Mohammed Bin Salman's Ill-Advised Ventures Have Weakened Saudi Arabia}
GREAT news.
Hopefully the evil, cannibalistic terrorism spreading so-called 'kingdom' of desert nomads
will continue on its path of self destruction, and disappear as a functioning state.
Once more a Saudi Firster was detained in KSA. This time the owner of Arab Bank, a Jordanian
with dual Jordan and KSA citizenship. Saad Hariri a Lebanese was the first one who was dual
Lebanon and KSA citizens and who lost his diplomatic immunity in KSA.
I wonder if the Israel Firster who are dual citizens are now sweating? Wonder, if Netanyahu is still an USA citizen? Happy days are coming back .
"Saudi relations with other countries used to be cautious, conservative and aimed at
preserving the status quo. But today its behaviour is zany, unpredictable and often
counterproductive:"
Saudis allied with Israelis, backed by the wealth and might of the US? Guaranteed to bring
out the worst in Saudis (which is bad enough at base) and Israelis and Americans.
Machiavellian skills really ? I'd see 6 months ahead if this was true. MBS just made a show
that they are a de facto Mafia not a businessman to the whole world. I'd bet he just quashed
a lot of efforts and money spent on raising the racing horses of the saud monarch and in turn
destroyed some serious connection that were vital but aren't readily available to them. Just
how potent money they thought it would be ? Sure all is businesses and it will work so long
you can pay the right person. The problem is where to find the right person.
Come on Cockburn, look at the Big Picture, not the little one. This the old fallacy of
looking at the trees and not seeing the forest. What is happening in Saudi Arabia is a piece
of the much bigger puzzle being put together over years, decades, and maybe generations.
The
psychopaths at the top of the power pyramid have been engaged in this hidden global game for
generations, it's always been part of their longterm strategy.
Very recently Highly
intelligent, realistic, morally and ethically centered, and practically oriented individuals,
have also formed secret powerful groups to arrive at beneficial goals for humanity. These
truly Good Guys have learned that the criminal, murderous, lecherous, degenerate, deviate,
psychopaths in positions of great power are irredeemable and should be eliminated where
possible. What you see in Saudi Arabia is merely a tree, not the forest. Just the same, to
the author, keep writing but research the subject much much more before you put pen to paper,
as you do have apersuasive and talented style.
1. We have been screaming about the unintended consequences of Saudi giving to charities
since 2004.
2. We removed the buffer of Iraq from Iranian ambitions (as unclear as it may be debated)
creating issues not only for Saudi Arabia, but others in the region as well.
3. We are the ones who have been fomenting destabilization all throughout the region some
of whom would have been allies of the Saudis in some common cause.
4. No one is escaping the negative consequences of our Iraq invasion.
5. We have been complaining about rogue and irresponsible wealthy Muslims ad naseum.
Now when someone steps up the plate to meet the challenges many caused by the US –
our first complaint is not astute counsel but rather a series of articles highlighting
failure. I would not contend that I support every choice. But I think we should at least take
a wait and see perspective. He is operating in a region rife with intrigue and ambitions, not to mention -- Muslims bent
on spreading Islam as one would expect a muslim to do. Frankly I am not sure how one governs
in the arena of the middle east – especially now – it's a region in major
shift.
I think there are more effective choices concerning Yemen and Qatar. But figuring out what
the choices are is not going to be easy. And harder still perhaps is implementing them. As for backfire -- we are just not in a position to judge, at the moment. Anyone hoping that another major state collapses in that region is probably miscalculating
the value of instability.
The Saudis are the U.S. and ISISRAELS puppet, they do what the Zionist neocons tell them to
do, which is to be the Zionist agent provocateur in the Mideast.
The Saudis have helped the U.S. and ISISRAEL create and finance ISIS aka AL CIADA and for
this the Saudis can rot in hell, and by the way the reason for the attack on Yemen is that
the Saudis oil reserves are diminishing and so the Saudis figured they would take Yemens
oil.
The main creators of ISIS aka AL CIADA are the U.S. and ISISRAEL and BRITAIN ie the CIA
and the MOSSAD and MI6.
The irony is that Saudis, before MbS and during his dominance, are making exactly the same
suicidal blunders as the US. No enemy could have damaged the US and its positions in the
world more than its Presidents and the Congress in the last 17 years. The same is true for
KSA, with the same mistakes being made: undermining the financial system of the country,
global over-reach that forces all opposition to unite, crazy military expenses, etc.
Sorry, but these people dressed in 14 century robes and garb, cannot be taken seriously. They
look like play-people feigning a furious grandeur.
Without their petrochemicals – they would be laughed at by everyone –
including their own kind. They should not be respected because they are religious – they are old world
tribalist thugs hiding behind a religion. They use and abuse their people – holding
them back from modernity.
Thing is, Saudi regime was rotten through and through before MbS, remains rotten under his
rule, and will remain rotten when some other jerk kicks him out and establishes himself at
the helm.
It does not matter how smart Saudi Arabia is with their foreign policy now, they became
allies with Israel, that means Saudi Arabia can never claim to be a power working for the
interests of Islam. MBS is a marked man, no matter how many purges he undertakes in his army,
or even if he just hires Pakistani soldiers, if he has Muslims fighting in his army he will
always be carrying the risk of being assassinated by somebody who has seen him cross the red
line and become pro jewish.
I don't really understand the constant hopes that the Saudi regime will fall. How is that any
different from cheering Bush's disastrous regime change in Iraq? How will the fallout be any
better in Arabia than it was in Iraq, Libya, etc?
It's not that there's a constant hope it's just they'd fall in the near future and
fortunately it will balance the geopolitical power in the future. Their fallout aren't going
to be as bad unless the people pulling their string persistent in keeping them in power.
It will be better because it means Israel loses an ally, also with the Saudis gone Egypt will also be unable to keep their
population in check. The fall of the Saudis means that Israel will be surrounded by regimes that oppose it...
Another Junior Gaddafi that is going to ruin his entire nation while intoxicated with NYT or
other Western media coverage. He talks of corruption after spending 1.1 Billion dollars on a
yacht and a painting.
Netenyahu is much the same. He has weakened Israel immensely by playing the scary wolf.
South Africa was never in danger from their hostile neighbors . They committed suicide. Egypt cannot control its own territory let alone start wars , ditto for Syria and Lebanon.
Jordan is a client state of Israel and lacks a functioning army. ...
Petras did not mention that it was Carter who started neoliberalization of the USA. The subsequent election of Reagan signified
the victory of neoliberalism in this country or "quite coup". The death of New Deal from this point was just a matter
of time. Labor relations drastically changes and war on union and atomization of workforce are a norm.
Welfare state still exists but only for corporation and MIC. Otherwise the New Deal society is almost completely dismanted.
It is true that "The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class
and the labor unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition
while the capitalists retained their executive prerogatives." But the key factor in this compromise was the existence of the USSR as
a threat to the power of capitalists in the USA. when the USSR disappeared cannibalistic instincts of the US elite prevailed over caution.
Notable quotes:
"... The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East. ..."
"... In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program – a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity and poor health. ..."
"... modern welfare state' ..."
"... Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections, collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility. ..."
"... Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions. ..."
"... World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number were also killed or wounded in the war. ..."
"... So-called ' right to work' ..."
"... Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses. Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay ..."
"... Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined ..."
"... With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation. ..."
"... Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based on politically fragile foundations. ..."
"... The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization, capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income. ..."
"... The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression, at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its control of the commanding heights of the economy ..."
"... Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home. The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers. Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas and turned their backs on labor at home. ..."
"... President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff. ..."
"... Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families ravaged the urban communities. ..."
"... President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven. ..."
"... Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued to moralize to black families about ' values' . ..."
"... Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa. The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of Africans flooding Europe. ..."
"... Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump ..."
"... Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block. ..."
"... The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave. ..."
"... Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush, ' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump. ..."
"... Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century. ..."
"... The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class polarized social system in history ..."
"... "The collaboration of liberals and unions in promoting endless wars opened the door to Trump's mirage of a stateless, tax-less, ruling class." ..."
"... Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up ..."
"... Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers. ..."
"... The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long as you are wealthy. ..."
"... Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it. ..."
The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period, the
capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.
Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies for
affordable housing have been gutted. ' Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced
workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits to an
astronomical degree.
What started as incremental reversals during the 1990's under Clinton has snowballed over the last two decades decimating welfare
legislation and institutions.
The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a
series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East.
In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program
– a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized
by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity
and poor health.
New Deals and Big Wars
The 1930's witnessed the advent of social legislation and action, which laid the foundations of what is called the ' modern
welfare state' .
Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections,
collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and
benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class
and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility.
Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through
federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace
shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions.
World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective
bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number
were also killed or wounded in the war.
The post-war period witnessed a contradictory process: wages and salaries increased while legislation curtailed union rights via
the Taft Hartley Act and the McCarthyist purge of leftwing trade union activists. So-called ' right to work' laws effectively
outlawed unionization mostly in southern states, which drove industries to relocate to the anti-union states.
Welfare reforms, in the form of the GI bill, provided educational opportunities for working class and rural veterans, while federal-subsidized
low interest mortgages encourage home-ownership, especially for veterans.
The New Deal created concrete improvements but did not consolidate labor influence at any level. Capitalists and management still
retained control over capital, the workplace and plant location of production.
Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses.
Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing
hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay "). Dissident local unions were seized and gutted by the trade union bosses
– sometimes through violence.
Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the
will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist
class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially
in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined.
While a new wave of social welfare legislation and programs began in the 1960's and early 1970's it was no longer a result of
a mass trade union or workers' "class struggle". Moreover, trade union collaboration with the capitalist regional war policies led
to the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of workers in two wars – the Korean and Vietnamese wars.
Much of social legislation resulted from the civil and welfare rights movements. While specific programs were helpful, none of
them addressed structural racism and poverty.
The Last Wave of Social Welfarism
The 1960'a witnessed the greatest racial war in modern US history: Mass movements in the South and North rocked state and federal
governments, while advancing the cause of civil, social and political rights. Millions of black citizens, joined by white activists
and, in many cases, led by African American Viet Nam War veterans, confronted the state. At the same time, millions of students and
young workers, threatened by military conscription, challenged the military and social order.
Energized by mass movements, a new wave of social welfare legislation was launched by the federal government to pacify mass opposition
among blacks, students, community organizers and middle class Americans. Despite this mass popular movement, the union bosses at
the AFL-CIO openly supported the war, police repression and the military, or at best, were passive impotent spectators of the drama
unfolding in the nation's streets. Dissident union members and activists were the exception, as many had multiple identities to represent:
African American, Hispanic, draft resisters, etc.
Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, the EPA and multiple poverty programs were implemented.
A national health program, expanding Medicare for all Americans, was introduced by President Nixon and sabotaged by the Kennedy Democrats
and the AFL-CIO. Overall, social and economic inequalities diminished during this period.
The Vietnam War ended in defeat for the American militarist empire. This coincided with the beginning of the end of social welfare
as we knew it – as the bill for militarism placed even greater demands on the public treasury.
With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were
accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation.
Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based
on politically fragile foundations.
The Debacle of Welfarism
Private sector trade union membership declined from a post-world war peak of 30% falling to 12% in the 1990's. Today it has sunk
to 7%. Capitalists embarked on a massive program of closing thousands of factories in the unionized North which were then relocated
to the non-unionized low wage southern states and then overseas to Mexico and Asia. Millions of stable jobs disappeared.
Following the election of 'Jimmy Carter', neither Democratic nor Republican Presidents felt any need to support labor organizations.
On the contrary, they facilitated contracts dictated by management, which reduced wages, job security, benefits and social welfare.
The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention
firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush
and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was
astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization,
capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income.
The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression,
at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its
control of the commanding heights of the economy.
The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class and the labor
unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition while the capitalists
retained their executive prerogatives.
The Second World War secured the economic recovery for capital and subordinated labor through a federally mandated no strike
production agreement. There were a few notable exceptions: The coal miners' union organized strikes in strategic sectors and some
leftist leaders and organizers encouraged slow-downs, work to rule and other in-plant actions when employers ran roughshod with special
brutality over the workers. The recovery of capital was the prelude to a post-war offensive against independent labor-based political
organizations. The quality of labor organization declined even as the quantity of trade union membership increased.
Labor union officials consolidated internal control in collaboration with the capitalist elite. Capitalist class-labor official
collaboration was extended overseas with strategic consequences.
The post-war corporate alliance between the state and capital led to a global offensive – the replacement of European-Japanese
colonial control and exploitation by US business and bankers. Imperialism was later 're-branded' as ' globalization' . It
pried open markets, secured cheap docile labor and pillaged resources for US manufacturers and importers.
US labor unions played a major role by sabotaging militant unions abroad in cooperation with the US security apparatus: They worked
to coopt and bribe nationalist and leftist labor leaders and supported police-state regime repression and assassination of recalcitrant
militants.
' Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home.
The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers.
Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas
and turned their backs on labor at home.
Labor union officials had laid the groundwork for the demise of stable jobs and social benefits for American workers. Their collaboration
increased the rate of capitalist profit and overall power in the political system. Their complicity in the brutal purges of militants,
activists and leftist union members and leaders at home and abroad put an end to labor's capacity to sustain and expand the welfare
state.
Trade unions in the US did not use their collaboration with empire in its bloody regional wars to win social benefits for the
rank and file workers. The time of social-imperialism, where workers within the empire benefited from imperialism's pillage, was
over. Gains in social welfare henceforth could result only from mass struggles led by the urban poor, especially Afro-Americans,
community-based working poor and militant youth organizers.
The last significant social welfare reforms were implemented in the early 1970's – coinciding with the end of the Vietnam War
(and victory for the Vietnamese people) and ended with the absorption of the urban and anti-war movements into the Democratic Party.
Henceforward the US corporate state advanced through the overseas expansion of the multi-national corporations and via large-scale,
non-unionized production at home.
The technological changes of this period did not benefit labor. The belief, common in the 1950's, that science and technology
would increase leisure, decrease work and improve living standards for the working class, was shattered. Instead technological changes
displaced well-paid industrial labor while increasing the number of mind-numbing, poorly paid, and politically impotent jobs in the
so-called 'service sector' – a rapidly growing section of unorganized and vulnerable workers – especially including women and minorities.
Labor union membership declined precipitously. The demise of the USSR and China's turn to capitalism had a dual effect: It eliminated
collectivist (socialist) pressure for social welfare and opened their labor markets with cheap, disciplined workers for foreign manufacturers.
Labor as a political force disappeared on every count. The US Federal Reserve and President 'Bill' Clinton deregulated financial
capital leading to a frenzy of speculation. Congress wrote laws, which permitted overseas tax evasion – especially in Caribbean tax
havens. Regional free-trade agreements, like NAFTA, spurred the relocation of jobs abroad. De-industrialization accompanied the decline
of wages, living standards and social benefits for millions of American workers.
The New Abolitionists: Trillionaires
The New Deal, the Great Society, trade unions, and the anti-war and urban movements were in retreat and primed for abolition.
Wars without welfare (or guns without butter) replaced earlier 'social imperialism' with a huge growth of poverty and homelessness.
Domestic labor was now exploited to finance overseas wars not vice versa. The fruits of imperial plunder were not shared.
As the working and middle classes drifted downward, they were used up, abandoned and deceived on all sides – especially by the
Democratic Party. They elected militarists and demagogues as their new presidents.
President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the
prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff.
Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next
generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families
ravaged the urban communities.
Provoked by an act of terrorism (9/11) President G.W. Bush Jr. launched the 'endless' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and deepened
the police state (Patriot Act). Wages for American workers and profits for American capitalist moved in opposite directions.
The Great Financial Crash of 2008-2011 shook the paper economy to its roots and led to the greatest shakedown of any national
treasury in history directed by the First Black American President. Trillions of public wealth were funneled into the criminal banks
on Wall Street – which were ' just too big to fail .' Millions of American workers and homeowners, however, were '
just
too small to matter' .
The Age of Demagogues
President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion
to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven.
Obama's electoral 'donor-owners' stashed away two trillion dollars in overseas tax havens and looked forward to global free trade
pacts – pushed by the eloquent African American President.
Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while
swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama
completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued
to moralize to black families about ' values' .
Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa.
The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of
Africans flooding Europe.
'Obamacare' , his imitation of an earlier Republican governor's health plan, was formulated by the private corporate
health industry (private insurance, Big Pharma and the for-profit hospitals), to mandate enrollment and ensure triple digit profits
with double digit increases in premiums. By the 2016 Presidential elections, ' Obama-care' was opposed by a 45%-43% margin
of the American people. Obama's propagandists could not show any improvement of life expectancy or decrease in infant and maternal
mortality as a result of his 'health care reform'. Indeed the opposite occurred among the marginalized working class in the old 'rust
belt' and in the rural areas. This failure to show any significant health improvement for the masses of Americans is in stark contrast
to LBJ's Medicare program of the 1960's, which continues to receive massive popular support.
Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump
Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block.
The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare
state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing
at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave.
Conclusion
Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed
to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush,
' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump.
Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions
into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in
the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from
the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century.
The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and
among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off
state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class
polarized social system in history. The first trillionaire and multi-billionaire tax evaders rose on the backs of a miserable
standing army of tens of millions of low-wage workers, stripped of rights and representation. State subsidies eliminate virtually
all risk to capital. The end of social welfare coerced labor (including young mother with children) to seek insecure low-income employment
while slashing education and health – cementing the feet of generations into poverty. Regional wars abroad have depleted the Treasury
and robbed the country of productive investment. Economic imperialism exports profits, reversing the historic relation of the past.
Labor is left without compass or direction; it flails in all directions and falls deeper in the web of deception and demagogy.
To escape from Reagan and the strike breakers, labor embraced the cheap-labor predator Clinton; black and white workers united to
elect Obama who expelled millions of immigrant workers, pursued 7 wars, abandoned black workers and enriched the already filthy rich.
Deception and demagogy of the labor-
If the welfare state in America was abolished, major American cities would burn to the ground. Anarchy would ensue, it would be
magnitudes bigger than anything that happened in Ferguson or Baltimore. It would likely be simultaneous.
I think that's one of the only situations where preppers would actually live out what they've been prepping for (except for
a natural disaster).
I've been thinking about this a little over the past few years after seeing the race riots. What exactly is the line between
our society being civilized and breaking out into chaos. It's probably a lot thinner than most people think.
I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people
figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury." We are definitely in this situation today.
I wonder how long it can last.
While I agree with Petras's intent (notwithstanding several exaggerations and unnecessary conflations with, for example, racism),
I don't agree so much with the method he proposes. I don't mind welfare and unions to a certain extent, but they are not going
to save us unless there is full employment and large corporations that can afford to pay an all-union workforce. That happened
during WW2, as only wartime demand and those pesky wage freezes solved the Depression, regardless of all the public works programs;
while the postwar era benefited from the US becoming the world's creditor, meaning that capital could expand while labor participation
did as well.
From then on, it is quite hard to achieve the same success after outsourcing and mechanization have happened all over the world.
Both of these phenomena not only create displaced workers, but also displaced industries, meaning that it makes more sense to
develop individual workfare (and even then, do it well, not the shoddy way it is done now) rather than giving away checks that
probably will not be cashed for entrepreneurial purposes, and rather than giving away money to corrupt unions who depend on trusts
to be able to pay for their benefits, while raising the cost of hiring that only encourages more outsourcing.
The amount of welfare given is not necessarily the main problem, the problem is doing it right for the people who truly need
it, and efficiently – that is, with the least amount of waste lost between the chain of distribution, which should reach intended
targets and not moochers.
Which inevitably means a sound tax system that targets unearned wealth and (to a lesser degree) foreign competition instead
of national production, coupled with strict, yet devolved and simple government processes that benefit both business and individuals
tired of bureaucracy, while keeping budgets balanced. Best of both worlds, and no military-industrial complex needed to drive
up demand.
The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period,
the capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up, and welfare for
them started before 1935. In fact, it started in America before there was a USA. I do not have time to elaborate, but what were
the various companies such as the British East India Company and the Dutch West India Companies but state pampered, welfare based
entities? ~200 years ago, Herbert Spencer, if memory serves, pointed out that the British East India Company couldn't make a profit
even with all the special, government granted favors showered upon it.
Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune
the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a
money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers.
Well, the author kind of nails it. I remember from my childhood in the 50-60 ties in Scandinavia that the US was the ultimate
goal in welfare. The country where you could make a good living with your two hands, get you kids to UNI, have a house, a telly
ECT. It was not consumerism, it was the American dream, a chicken in every pot; we chewed imported American gum and dreamed.
In the 70-80 ties Scandinavia had a tremendous social and economic growth, EQUALLY distributed, an immense leap forward. In the
middle of the 80 ties we were equal to the US in standards of living.
Since we have not looked at the US, unless in pity, as we have seen the decline of the general income, social wealth fall way
behind our own.
The average US workers income has not increased since 90 figures adjusted for inflation. The Scandinavian workers income in the
same period has almost quadrupled. And so has our societies.
The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long
as you are wealthy.
Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies
for affordable housing have been gutted. 'Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced
workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits
to an astronomical degree.
What does Hollywood "elite" JAP and wannabe hack-stand-up-comic Sarah Silverman think about the class struggle and problems
facing destitute Americans? "Qu'ils mangent de la bagels!", source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions
in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it.
As other commenters have pointed out, it's Petras curious choice of words that sometimes don't make too much sense. We can probably
blame the maleable English language for that, but here it's too obvious. If you don't define a union, people might assume you're
only talking about a bunch of meat cutters at Safeway.
The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and secrecy,
you're either in the club or not.
The war on unions was successful first by co-option but mostly by the media. But what kind of analysis leaves out the role
of the media in the American transformation? The success is mind blowing.
America has barely literate (white) middle aged males trained to spout incoherent Calvinistic weirdness: unabased hatred for
the poor (or whoever they're told to hate) and a glorification of hedge fund managers as they get laid off, fired and foreclosed
on, with a side of opiates.
There is hardly anything more tragic then seeing a web filled with progressives (management consultants) dedicated to disempowering,
disabling and deligitimizing victims by claiming they are victims of biology, disease or a lack of an education rather than a
system that issues violence while portending (with the best media money can buy) that they claim the higher ground.
""Democracy can only work until the people figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public
treasury." We are definitely in this situation today."
Quite right: the 0.01% have worked it out & US democracy is a Theatre for the masses.
I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people
figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury."
Some French aristocrat put it as, once the gates to the treasury have been breached, they can only be closed again with gunpowder.
Anyone recognize the author?
The author doesn't get it. What we have now IS the welfare state in an intensely diverse society. We have more transfer spending
than ever before and Obamacare represents another huge entitlement.
Intellectuals continue to fantasize about the US becoming a Big Sweden, but Sweden has only been successful insofar as it has
been a modest nation-state populated by ethnic Swedes. Intense diversity in a huge country with only the remnants of federalism
results in massive non-consensual decision-making, fragmentation, increased inequality, and corruption.
The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and
secrecy, you're either in the club or not.
They are largely defined as Doctors, Lawyers, and University Professors who teach the first two. Of course they are not called
unions. Access is via credentialing and licensing. Good Day
Bernie Sanders, speaking on behalf of the MIC's welfare bird: "It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and
of NATO."
Elizabeth Warren, referring to Mossad's Estes Rockets: "The Israeli military has the right to attack Palestinian hospitals
and schools in self defense"
Barack Obama, yukking it up with pop stars: "Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming."
It's not the agitprop that confuses the sheep, it's whose blowhole it's coming out of (labled D or R for convenience) that
gets them to bare their teeth and speak of poo.
What came first, the credentialing or the idea that it is a necessary part of education? It certainly isn't an accurate indication
of what people know or their general intelligence – although that myth has flourished. Good afternoon.
For an interesting projection of what might happen in total civilizational collapse, I recommend the Dies the Fire series of
novels by SM Stirling.
It has a science-fictiony setup in that all high-energy system (gunpowder, electricity, explosives, internal combustion, even
high-energy steam engines) suddenly stop working. But I think it does a good job of extrapolating what would happen if suddenly
the cities did not have food, water, power, etc.
Spoiler alert: It ain't pretty. Those who dream of a world without guns have not really thought it through.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that Sweden does very well relative to the USA. It has also been noted that people of Swedish
ancestry in the USA do pretty well also. In fact considerably better than Swedes in Sweden
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok ImplicatedTyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES
detailed in a
Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok
The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement
with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor
, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by
Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated
conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information,
and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate
Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.
Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills
Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and
aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to
the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over
in the investigation.
Sen. Johnson's letter reads:
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects .
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were
uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal
charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client
did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option
but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared
that Hillary had broken the law.
In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification
for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on
Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly
negligent in their handling of that information."
Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's
private email server.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess
potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:
[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what
indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.
The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:
[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection
with the personal e-mail operation.
Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors,
changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase
"Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above
50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.
It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion
of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
The original draft read:
Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
private email account."
The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
e-mail account.
Johnson's letter also questions an "
insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa
Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected
-- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."
One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on
August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became
the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to
Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a
counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
(h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )
Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016
The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications
of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the
Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions
about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."
Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:
Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the
FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement .
Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's
behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what
basis was this change made?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely"
that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible."
What evidence supported these changes?
Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the
basis for the redactions produced to date.
We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary
Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands
off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the
issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue
justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal
ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.
All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not
a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.
That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once
the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires
a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information
is being discussed.
Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down
Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry
(which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.
And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know
they weren't hacked, they were leaked.
Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing
will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's
nothing here.
That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still
motivated to lose everything for this thing...
In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.
Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):
Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base
happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor
Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for
more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access
to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.
Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work
in Congress with their work for the DNC.
Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't
corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating
evidence.
Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire
a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.
They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months
they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.
Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there
may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism
by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.
you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and
start over---has NO chance of happenning
the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect,
honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated
Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos;
that will half-drain the swamp.
If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who
hate that more than they hate being in jail.
Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means
"I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer
their statements to figure out what they did.
And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty
Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7.
Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.
I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment
time. Surprised the hell out of me.
the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen
reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..
That question arise during recent senate session of Rosenstein
It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal FBI liaison to CIA
Director Brennan.
Notable quotes:
"... Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post paid any price for their promotion of the invasion and destruction of Iraq. They might not get off as easy this time. One can hope. ..."
"... I can add one more. It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director Brennan. At least this point was made explicitly in a recent LarouchePAC Live broadcast on Youtube (perhaps Will Wertz's presentation at last Saturday's Manhattan Project event) though I don't know what their evidence is. So we can ask: Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan? ..."
I've been seeing all sorts of places where this fellow Strzok's name pops up. Things like a FISA judge recusing himself. Things
like him possibly arranging things so Hillary was able to continue her run for President. At a super-right-wing site I found these
"questions".
Did Peter Strzok receive the Steele Dossier from Hillary Clinton on July 4th when he interviewed her?
If Hillary didn't give Strzok the dossier, who did?
Did Peter Strzok put together the FISA Court material, which included the Steele Dossier?
Did Peter Strzok go to the FISA Court and ask for the surveillance of the Trump team based on the Steele Dossier?
Did James Comey assign Peter Strzok to the Clinton email case?
Did James Comey assign Peter Strzok to the Trump surveillance case?
Did James Comey know that Peter Strzok was compromised when he sent him to interview Michael Flynn (where surveillance was
used to interview him based on the Steele Dossier that was presented to the FISA Court that Strzok put together?)
Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post paid any price for their promotion of the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
They might not get off as easy this time. One can hope.
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 8:36 am
I can add one more. It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal
FBI liaison to CIA Director Brennan. At least this point was made explicitly in a recent LarouchePAC Live broadcast on Youtube
(perhaps Will Wertz's presentation at last Saturday's Manhattan Project event) though I don't know what their evidence is. So
we can ask: Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan?
"... The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency. ..."
"... As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state" exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump. ..."
"... In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here." ..."
"... Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." ..."
"... The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President. ..."
"... After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with Russia. ..."
"... And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about "hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis. ..."
"... Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it. Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the Russia-gate Narrative. "] ..."
"... If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it could explain why claims from an unverified dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow hotel, was added as a classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect Trump. ..."
"... That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate Trump. ..."
"... But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after ..."
"... Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated admissions that there was no "17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest. ..."
"... Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's curiosity. ..."
"... Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier. ..."
"... Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press would ask them, of course. ..."
"... That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi. ..."
"... "Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT question. ..."
"... Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries. ..."
"... Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal ideology. ..."
"... the most dubious thing was, of course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory ..."
"... So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere. Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially investigated. ..."
"... It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either. ..."
"... Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting. That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1. ..."
"... There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think? ..."
"... "Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC. the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works department in a 2010 DOJ report." Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever. ..."
"... Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today. ..."
"... Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill since. ..."
"... Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on. ..."
"... Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"), perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort. ..."
"... Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/ ..."
"... It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under banner headlines long ago. ..."
"... Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker? ..."
"... The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of influence. That is unacceptable to the empire. ..."
"... RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist, but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate. And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort. ..."
"... Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations? ..."
Exclusive: Taking on water from revealed FBI conflicts of interest, the foundering
Russia-gate probe – and its mainstream media promoters – are resorting to insults
against people who note the listing ship, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved
senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the
supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that
some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's
presidency.
Peter Strzok, who served as a Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, second in command of counterintelligence.
As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state"
exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior
FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two
high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as
protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as
unfit as Trump.
In one Aug. 6, 2016 text exchange, Page told Strzok: "Maybe you're meant to stay where you
are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace." At the end of that text, she
sent Strzok a link to a David Brooks
column in The New York Times, which concludes with the clarion call: "There comes a time
when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you're not in revolt, you're in cahoots.
When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in
shame."
Apparently after reading that stirring advice, Strzok replied, "And of course I'll try and
approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many
levels, not sure if that helps."
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, criticized
Strzok's boast that "I can protect our country at many levels." Jordan said: "this guy thought
he was super-agent James Bond at the FBI [deciding] there's no way we can let the American
people make Donald Trump the next president."
In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump
voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I
could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here."
Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at
the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference
to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug.
15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk."
Strzok added, "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before
you're 40."
It's unclear what strategy these FBI officials were contemplating to ensure Trump's defeat,
but the comments mesh with what an intelligence source told me after the 2016 election, that
there was a plan among senior Obama administration officials to use the allegations about
Russian meddling to block Trump's momentum with the voters and -- if elected -- to persuade
members of the Electoral College to deny Trump a majority of votes and thus throw the selection
of a new president into the House of Representatives under the rules of the Twelfth
Amendment .
The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State
Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral
College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of
Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President.
After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to
create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least
weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with
Russia.
In one of her text messages to Strzok, Page made reference to a possible Watergate-style
ouster of Trump, writing: "Bought all the president's men. Figure I needed to brush up on
watergate."
As a key feature in this oust-Trump effort, Democrats have continued to lie by claiming that
"all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred" in the assessment that Russia hacked the
Democratic emails last year on orders from President Vladimir Putin and then slipped them to
WikiLeaks to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.
That canard was used in the early months of the Russia-gate imbroglio to silence any
skepticism about the "hacking" accusation, and the falsehood was repeated again by a Democratic
congressman during Wednesday's hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
But the "consensus" claim was never true. In May 2017 testimony ,
President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that the Jan. 6
"Intelligence Community Assessment" was put together by "hand-picked" analysts from only three
agencies: the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
Biased at the Creation
And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about
"hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you
that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis.
Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had
in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it.
Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would
almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance
of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see
Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the
Russia-gate Narrative. "]
If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it
could explain why claims from an unverified
dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian
intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow
hotel, was added as a
classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect
Trump.
Though Democrats and the Clinton campaign long denied financing the dossier – prepared
by ex-British spy Christopher Steele who claimed to rely on second- and third-hand information
from anonymous Russian contacts – it was revealed in
October 2017 that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign shared in the
costs, with the payments going to the "oppo" research firm, Fusion GPS, through the Democrats'
law firm, Perkins Coie.
That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who
talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has
acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate
Trump.
Bruce Ohr has since been demoted and Strzok was quietly removed from the Russia-gate
investigation last July although the reasons for these moves were not publicly explained at the
time.
Still, the drive for "another Watergate" to oust an unpopular – and to many insiders,
unfit – President remains at the center of the thinking among the top mainstream news
organizations as they have scrambled for Russia-gate "scoops" over the past year even
at the cost of making serious reporting errors .
For instance, last Friday, CNN -- and then CBS News and MSNBC -- trumpeted an email
supposedly sent from someone named Michael J. Erickson on Sept. 4, 2016, to Donald Trump Jr.
that involved WikiLeaks offering the Trump campaign pre-publication access to purloined
Democratic National Committee emails that WikiLeaks published on Sept. 13, nine days later.
Grasping for Confirmation
Since the Jan. 6 report alleged that WikiLeaks received the "hacked" emails from Russia -- a
claim that WikiLeaks and Russia deny -- the story seemed to finally tie together the notion
that the Trump campaign had at least indirectly colluded with Russia.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at
Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona. March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)
This new "evidence" spread like wildfire across social media. As The Intercept's Glenn
Greenwald
wrote in an article critical of the media's performance, some Russia-gate enthusiasts
heralded the revelation with graphics of cannons booming and nukes exploding.
But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually
Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after WikiLeaks released the batch of DNC emails, not
Sept. 4. It appeared that "Erickson" – whoever he was – had simply alerted the
Trump campaign to the public existence of the WikiLeaks disclosure.
Greenwald
noted , "So numerous are the false stories about Russia and Trump over the last year that I
literally cannot list them all."
Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated
admissions that there was no
"17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a
preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was
riddled with conflicts of interest.
The Times'
lead editorial on Wednesday mocked reporters at Fox News for living in an "alternate
universe" where the Russia-gate "investigation is 'illegitimate and corrupt,' or so says Gregg
Jarrett, a legal analyst who appears regularly on [Sean] Hannity's nightly exercise in
presidential ego-stroking."
Though briefly mentioning the situation with Strzok's text messages, the Times offered no
details or context for the concerns, instead just heaping ridicule on anyone who questions the
Russia-gate narrative.
"To put it mildly, this is insane," the Times declared. "The primary purpose of Mr.
Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump. It's to protect America's national
security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether a presidential campaign
conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election – a proposition that
grows more plausible every day."
The Times fumed that "roughly three-quarters of Republicans still refuse to accept that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election – a fact that is glaringly obvious to everyone
else, including the nation's intelligence community." (There we go again with the false
suggestion of a consensus within the intelligence community.)
The Times also took to task Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, for seeking "a Special
Counsel to investigate ALL THINGS 2016 – not just Trump and Russia." The Times insisted
that "None of these attacks or insinuations are grounded in good faith."
But what are the Times editors so afraid of? As much as they try to insult and intimidate
anyone who demands serious evidence about the Russia-gate allegations, why shouldn't the
American people be informed about how Washington insiders manipulate elite opinion in pursuit
of reversing "mistaken" judgments by the unwashed masses?
Do the Times editors really believe in democracy – a process that historically has had
its share of warts and mistakes – or are they just elitists who think they know best and
turn away their noses from the smell of working-class people at Walmart?
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 ).
mike k , December 13, 2017 at 9:54 pm
The NYT is just another tool of the multi-billionaire oligarchs who rule this USA from the
shadows. They fear nothing more than the light. When that investigative light gets strong
enough, more and more ordinary folks will begin to awake to the massive fraud that has been
perpetrated at their expense. And when that happens, we will finally see the Oligarchy begin
to crumble under the pressure of the 99%. The truth will out, then heads will roll ..
mike k , December 13, 2017 at 10:00 pm
Keep up the pressure – get your friends interested, tell them about CN,
Counterpunch, Strategic-Culture, Chris Hedges, etc. Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating
hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's
curiosity.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:04 am
How about also including RT in your list? It's a news and commentary site with strong
journalistic values and credibility, notwithstanding what the Administration or the MSM may
say or imply.
T.J , December 14, 2017 at 8:45 am
If RT didn't have the qualities you describe, attempts by the Administration and the MSM
to discredit it would have been successful. However they will attempt to silence it by other
means.
Adam Kraft , December 14, 2017 at 11:59 am
Very true TJ. I found counterpunch when wapo / propornot blacklisted them. Gave 'em creds
imo. I also like mint press, occupy, naked capitalism, **world socialist website**,
disobedient media, truthout, some of Glenns work on the Intercept and my youtube subs
include: wearechange, **anonymous Scandinavia**, **the jimmy dore show**, RT America, TeleSUR
English*, Zoon Politikon, **democracy at work**, HA Goodman, theRealNews*, mintpressnews,
watching the hawks, secular talk, laura kinhtlinger, judicial watch, empire files, redacted
tonight, TBTV, a little from Julian Assange's twitter.
tina , December 14, 2017 at 11:06 pm
what about Al-Jazeera?
Erik G , December 14, 2017 at 8:03 am
Good suggestion; in such persuasion, one must respectfully suggest better sources and
avoid any conflict.
Mr. Parry has well summarized for beginners these essential counterpoints to the mass
media propaganda.
I like this use of "awakened," in contrast to the establishment culture's fascination with
"woke." People don't need to get woke. They need to become awakened. Thanks to Robert
Parry.
Walter Devine , December 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm
I thought we were waiting to hear what the evidence is found. The lack of discussion about
what they have uncovered seems to me to speak of a professional operation. Once they are done
and present what they have found, then everyone can get on their soap boxes and let loose. As
for Bias, that exists in everyone to some extent or another, where was the moral outrage from
the Republicans charging this today when the Benghazi investigation was being conducted by
folks with known axes to grind themselves? It is the Washington hypocrisy machine at its most
obvious. As for the media, print or otherwise, they are just preaching to their choirs in
order to sell whatever their particular consumers are buying. Frankly I have come to expect
more from you than this article Mr. Parry, here's hoping
Robert Gardner , December 13, 2017 at 10:45 pm
I've been skeptical out the Russian conspiracy so far, but I agree with what Walter Devine
wrote.
tina , December 13, 2017 at 11:42 pm
I am still waiting . Mr. Parry can ride on his story back in the 1980's. We are in 2017,
The internet is good. What did those people in Washington do today? get rid of net
neutrality? Love you all people on CN, Happy Hanukah Merry Christmas, and Kwanzaa, And the
winter solstice. Peace to all. Love, tina everyone is going to believe that they want to
believe.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:08 am
Are you kidding about Benghazi? Obviously you have still not informed yourself about the
egregious security breakdown of the Administration or how the Benghazi facility factored into
the CIA's proxy war in Syria. (And, btw, where was Hillary "Rod up her Hiney" Clinton when
that '3AM call' came in at 4pm?
"By placing the interests of the Obama administration over the public's interests, the order
is yet another data point highlighting the politicization of the FBI: After the September 11,
2012 attack against U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration
peddled a lie, telling the public that the attack was related to Muslims who had become
enraged at an anti-Islam YouTube video, and not a planned act of terrorism – despite
Hillary Clinton emailing Chelsea Clinton from her unsecure @clintonemail.com server the night
of the attack to say exactly that."
In 2016, [the FBI] received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" The "dossier" was a
compendium of allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled
by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House
investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee.
Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed
to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could
verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two
senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could
verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI
wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times.
Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to
launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately
paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.
-- Have you noticed the numbers for payments? The bank records? The names? -- these are the
evidence. Or you believe that there a Bias against the miserable Steele?
bobzz , December 14, 2017 at 3:06 pm
Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador
in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is
that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to
head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why
putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press
would ask them, of course.
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 4:28 pm
That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments
were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred
to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi.
Jon Adams , December 14, 2017 at 6:17 pm
"Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT
question.
Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 7:16 pm
Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article
which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank
missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended
up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing
the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a
deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing
them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries.
Thus, the CIA kept being surprised that its powerful weapons kept ending up in ISIS hands but
kept doing the same over and over: oops an oversight mistake, oops and another one, oops one
more, and another one, . the two hundredth one
Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with
another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign
tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as
much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays
an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory
even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in
over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for
justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and
denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal
ideology.
I wonder how long this can go on. So far, the indictments of the Muller team have had
nothing to do with the Russiagate conspiracy theory. Paul Manafort was indicted for tax
evasion related to lobbying business with Ukraine, mostly years ago. Michael Flynn was
indicted because when he reported a call from his holidays to the Russian ambassador to the
FBI more than three weeks later, he left out two elements (the FBI had the recordings from
the NSA, anyway, so they wouldn't have had to ask him about the telephone call). There was
nothing illegal about the contents of the telephone call (the most dubious thing was, of
course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best
hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory).
It seems quite plausible that Flynn just forgot these two elements of a telephone call in
which quite a large number of points was raised and that he pleaded guilty because of a plea
deal (otherwise he might have been indicted in connection with his lobbying work for Turkey).
Superficially, the closest to the idea of Russiagate is the indictment of Papadopoulos,
someone who played a minor role in the Trump campaign and was looking for contacts with
Russians, but, as it seems did not get very far (for some reasons he seemed to think a
Russian woman he was talking with was a relative of Putin). His actions may have been
naïve or misguided, but nothing about them was illegal, like in the case of Michael
Flynn, he is only accused of lying to the FBI about normal, legal actions.
So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere.
Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a
conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the
result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially
investigated.
The question is how they will wind down. If they just say that apart from things like
Manafort's possible tax evation and Flynn's lobbying for Israel, they have not found anything
– certainly nothing that confirms the Russiagate conspiracy theory -, that will be
quite difficult, people will demand that it is investigated how it came about that such a
conspiracy was spread and played such an influential role in political discourse for some
time. It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that
the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either.
Antiwar7 , December 14, 2017 at 7:24 am
How long should we wait until we hear of ONE, that's right, ONE piece of evidence backing
these claims up? Please answer: 2 years? 10 years? The only evidence so far amounts to "trust
us".
And that's ignoring the monumental number of pieces of false evidence that have been put
forward. That in itself makes the whole "investigation" suspicious. On top of the long,
documented history of the CIA planting false stories in the press.
bobzz , December 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm
I don't know. How long did it take the Dutch to cook the evidence to condemn Russian
partisans for the downing of the Malaysian airliner -- with Ukraine holding a gun to their
heads.
Dunno , December 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Dear Mr. 7, I have come to the grudging conclusion that Russia-gate is and has always been
more about Russia and Putin than about the crooked Don. If we stop to think about it, Trump
has succumbed to the deep control of the Deep-State colossus. Russia evil; Israel good! Got
it? When the pathetic wiener & crotch-grabber isn't bitchin' for Bibi and doing little
pooch tricks for Israel, he is being programmed by the pentagon and the Deep State, and
making sure that the super-rich get super richer. His own SOS Tillerson called him an effin'
moron. Enough said!
Therefore, 7, Russia-gate is all about keeping the pot boiling for the presidential
election in Russia next year. Demonizing Putin and Russia is the new great game of our era.
The NWO Nebula lusts after Russia's geostrategic location and its abundant resources. It's
1905-1925 all over again. Read the book, "Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905-1925"
by Richard B. Spence and also take a gander at Trine Day books' website of suppressed books.
The deep-state Plutocrats and their secret societies hatch their evil little plots, while
trying to keep the rest of us in the dark. Right now, Trump is a convenient platform for
anti-Russian propaganda.
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:24 pm
Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally
adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind
while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting.
That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1.
Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 8:10 am
Once more the standard troll line about being a prior supporter, which plainly "Devine" is
not.
We are well over a year into this matter with nothing but speculation and manufactured
claims.
It is clear that Russia-gate = Israel-gate, a diversion from zionist control of the DNC.
Where is the concern of "Devine" for the lack of investigation of control of elections and
mass media by Israel?
Why does he seek to cover up the complete destruction of democracy by the foreign power
Israel?
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:43 pm
Oliver Stone had this to say on the matter on FaceBook. If you're on FB, here is the
link.
facts don't show bias walt. yeah, media sells to the public, but they're also selling (or
trading narratives for access) to the gov't. Wikileaks exposed the MSM – DNC collusion
and we've witnessed the leaks and anonymous sources from the IC. Trust the CIA?
There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically
amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady
business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business
as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think?
I personally believe that progressive hope dies at the DNC and exposing the party's lies
(their private and public views) and undemocratic practices (preliminary process,
fundraising) is the best thing for the country. It brings us one step closer to potentially
building a third party that represents the proletariat and petty bourgeois classes.
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:49 pm
I agree with your sentiment, but I'm finding it disturbing how many so called progressives
are convinced beyond any doubt, despite the evidence I produce to instill doubt, that Russia
interfered in "our democracy."
They have come unglued to the point of idiocy over Trump. They are firmly in the clutches
of the CIA Deep State apparatus.
"Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp
up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016
presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works
department in a 2010 DOJ report."
Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever.
Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has
become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has
become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha,
ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today.
@ Walter Devine: "Once they are done and present what they have found, then everyone can
get on their soap boxes and let loose."
But overlook that the Democrats and mainstream media are doing the opposite? It seems to
me that this is precisely the point that Mr. Parry's reporting has been aimed at, that the
Democrats and mainstream media are jumping enormously to RussiaGate conclusions without
disclosing any evidence to back up their incredibly dangerous claims and that there *is* very
strong evidence of ulterior motives.
Gregory Herr , December 14, 2017 at 8:22 pm
Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long
ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill
since.
Peter de Klerk , December 14, 2017 at 8:53 pm
I had great respect Parry's earlier writing which had a healthy dose of MSM skepticism
(albeit largely for personal reasons). This whole business of jumping to conclusions on the
Russia meddling has put me off him totally. All the reporting seems to be in service of
defending a forgone conclusion. I wonder if this has anything to do with fundraising.
This whole Russia ate my lunch has entered the realm of alternate truth. The MSM are now
actually stating that the Russian hacking the 2016 election as fact. Just like all the other
false and fabricated statements of world events in the last 20 years . Fro Yugoslavia,
Milosovic exonerated for the falsely laid charges of genocide . How convenient after his
death . Qadaffi murdering and slaughtering his own people hence RPL interventionist and voila
the highest standard of living in the African continent is now reduced to takfiri heaven for
the NATO proxy army recruiting centre. MH17 disaster is still being paroled as Russian
deliberate murder. No facts no evidence that would stand even in a Stalinist show trial.
Assad gassing his own people. More than debunked by multiple sources and US academics to boot
no still being paroled as fact by western MSM.
The whole charade post 9/11 has gone into this Orwellian nightmare that just keep on growing
and news and information has become pure Hollwoodian fantasy that the sheeple are sleep
walking into this futuristic hell hole that these vile masters of the universe will not be
able to back track without losing face and without causing the populace to stand up and be
counted and kick tjhese vile players out for good.
john wilson , December 14, 2017 at 6:00 am
Take heart Falcemartello, its not all bad. Over here in the Britain RT has its own free to
view TV channel which sits next to the BBC news and the parliament programme. It is now
widely watched by the public and has millions of viewers with many using RT as their main
news source. The fact that the American deep state criminals have made things difficult for
RT America in the US, is a clear indication that the fake news masters otherwise known as the
MSN, and their handlers in the deep state are rattled by the ever growing alternative voice.
Its up to you, me and the rest of the posters on CN to tell our friends colleagues and others
about CN, RT etc. If only one percent take a look then alternative opinion will start to
filter through and more importantly, show the public what liars and criminals are in charge
of their country.
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:15 am
Thanks for the info John. I am really glad that at least Britain has a reasonable degree
of freedom of the press. If it spreads across Europe, the USA may eventually find itself so
isolated by its own propaganda that the whole evil empire scheme will implode, and we will
have to learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. That is my Christmas wish.
BobS , December 14, 2017 at 11:36 am
It's not difficult to get RT in the US- I watch it regularly on Dish Network. Youtube is
another option- I'm guessing it's big and rich enough to survive any changes in net
neutrality that will result from the Trump/Pai FCC (of course, Obama and Clinton were just as
bad, DEEP STATE!!!!, etc.).
If you're going to tout conspiracies, get your facts straight.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 4:48 pm
John Pilger has an article in counterpunch explaining the importance of documentaries (not
just his!). It is notable that his first one, on Cambodia, in 1970, was shown free to air on
TV in the UK and thirity other countries, with huge audience impact, but refused by PBS as
too disturbing!!
The free press in the USA is in tune with the ptb.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 5:06 pm
I see the Pilger article is here on consortiumnews. It is worth a read, like the rest
here!
Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 7:58 pm
What you wrote john wilson is simply not the complete truth, although I wish it was. It is
true that RT UK has its own terrestrial digital TV channel. It appears that Margarita
Simonyan bid for such channel at an auction when Britain was converting from analogue to
digital TV and got it. Thus, the British TV viewers can now see RT without any subscription
or special equipment, "next to BBC" as you optimistically say.
What you did not mention john wilson is that the British Government regulator Ofcom is
putting severe pressure on RT because their news offered an alternative view to the British
propaganda. They rinse and repeat the same biased-news allegations almost every year, keeping
RT UK under constant threat of the loss of its broadcasting licence due to "breach of truth
standards" = "fake news". They even banned the lightbox, radio and other media advertising
campaign of RT in Britain, the so called "RT is the second opinion", only because the
campaign claimed that if RT existed before UK attack on Iraq in 2003, Tony Blair may have not
been successful in passing the war resolutions through the parliament.
What most people do not appreciate is that the methods of suppression are not the same in
all Western countries, and why should they be? Simonyan got a terrestrial TV channel and the
broadcasting licence because of the British propaganda hubris – the British still
believed that their post-imperial propaganda is the best in the World, just because it was
the best in the world during the empire. They simply never expected the Russians to be so
successful, just the same as US.
In summary:
US => force RT to register as a foreign agent to force reporting of every little detail of
its operations; refuse journalistic credentials to Congress etc to disadvantage its
reporting
UK => keep constant threat of the loss of broadcasting licence to skew the reporting
towards the British Government version of the news
I post the links relevant to what I wrote here separately to avoid being put on hold.
Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's
interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't
that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of
FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital?
Just say'n.
rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 4:52 pm
Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on
fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers
and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on.
Spot on Bob, the unfortunate and idealistic Mr Seth Rich became the DNC's bottom line, the
shining example of its "anything goes as long as we have friends in the right places" (FBI,
DOJ, CIA, etc etc).
Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 9:04 pm
Agreed. Let's not forget Process Server for the DNC Fraud Lawsuit Shawn Lucas who died
mysteriously 2 weeks after serving the DNC either.
I never would have believed the rot in the Democratic Party establishment would rival the
Republicans, but here we are.
Anon , December 14, 2017 at 8:23 am
"Tina" is a troll assigned to CN to claim extremism, and never presents evidence or
argument.
Steven A , December 13, 2017 at 11:16 pm
This is another great review by Robert Parry. However, he again uses the formulation that
"WikiLeaks published" and "WikiLeaks released" purloined DNC emails on September 13, 2016.
Greenwald and the Washington Post have stated, more carefully, that WikiLeaks "promoted" the
data source of these emails by means of a Tweet on that date.
Adam Carter noted in a comment under Parry's previous article that the DNC emails in
question are the NGP/VAN files associated with Guccifer 2.0's pre-announced "hack" on July 5,
2016 and reportedly released by him on Sept 13, 2016.
In fact, they are certainly not part of WikiLeak's official archive. One can see from
their website that they published nothing between the times of the DNC emails release of July
22, 2016 and the Podesta emails release of October 7. So "published" is clearly the wrong
word.
Whether or in what sense it may fairly be stated that WikiLeaks "released", "promoted" or
"uploaded" (as according to the Erickson email, which probably represents nothing more than
an outsider's impression) the September 13 files needs to be cautiously assessed. Their Tweet
did include an access key, as did the Erickson email, and the address for the file given in
the latter was a "mega.nz" address. I assume that this address is associated with Kim Dot
Com, who also claims to have been involved with WikiLeaks.
Did Guccifer 2.0 himself upload the files to mega.nz? Did he play Kim Dot Com to use the
latter's association with Wikileaks to get Wikileaks itself to put out the Sept 13 Tweet
advertising the data release? I'm not sure how this all worked, but it seems that it is
misleading to simply refer to this set of emails as having been "published" by Wikileaks.
incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:12 am
Didn't you read the VIPS analyses of the DNC leaks?
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 8:21 am
Yes, I did, but not while writing my comment above. Do they say anything relevant to the
question of whether it is accurate to correct the false media report that the Trump campaign
was given access to the NGP/VAN DNC emails before WikiLeaks published them with a "corrected"
statement that the Trump campaign was notified (but may never have noticed) of a link to
those files by a random member of the public _after WikiLeaks had already published them_? As
I recall, the original VIPS memo was itself somewhat confused about the distinction between
the NGP/VAN material and the five DNC documents made public by "Guccifer 2.0" on June 15,
2016, so I'm not sure one will find anything relevant to my question there.
While it is true that the "correction" here is _much_ closer to the truth than the
original misinformation, the underlined part at the end of my question still seems misleading
in that the "publication" is attributed to WikiLeaks without qualification. And it seems
Parry is not the only one to make this mistake. As Adam Carter pointed out two days ago, he
was very surprised that almost no one has been noticing that the files in question came from
"Guccifer 2.0" and not from WikiLeaks. While Parry's attribution misleading, I am still not
clear in my own mind about precisely what did happen, i.e. how WikiLeaks came to "promote"
the release of the files and whether in some loose or indirect sense WikiLeaks did "release"
them.
mike k , December 14, 2017 at 11:08 am
Is there really any other purpose in your involved questioning but seeking to cloud and
confuse the obvious issues in the "Russia hacked" affair?
Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 2:05 pm
How is it clouding the issue to suggest, as Adam Carter did, that one element in Parry's
(and others') description of the facts in an otherwise excellent article seems to be
misleading?
@ "the address for the file given in the latter was a "mega.nz" address. I assume that
this address is associated with Kim Dot Com, who also claims to have been involved with
WikiLeaks."
These are the sort of details I haven't been familiar with and about which I was hoping to
learn more – so thanks! I was relying on a vague impression from memory when I made the
link between the "mega.nz" address seen in the email from Erickson and Kim Dot Com.
Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks
as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then
being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"),
perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone
associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort.
Thus the statement that "WikiLeaks published" the files in question (repeated by Parry,
Justin Raimondo and others) appears to be false. I share the surprise expressed by Adam
Carter (under Parry's previous piece) that few appear to have noticed or bothered to correct
this error – even though they were on target in exposing the main part of the latest
MSM lie.
Those of us who live within the Outlaw US Empire have been seduced by lies Big and small
since we could understand language. RussiaGate is an example of a Big Lie, just as the Outlaw
US Empire being a democracy is a Big Lie–both are indoctrinational. Santa Claus, Tooth
Fairy, Easter Bunny, Great Pumpkin, Sand Man, Cupid, et al are other excellent examples of
indoctrinational Big Lies. One of the most severe is the maxim delivered from parents: You
must share and play nice, when the real world acts in the exact opposite fashion. What's
more, RussiaGate serves as a cover-up for several major crimes–some by Clinton, some by
DNC, some by FBI, some by Justice Department, and some by CIA: None of them are being
actively investigated despite there being lots of evidence existing in the public domain,
which is why we know those crimes occurred.
"A Russian hacker accused of stealing from Russian banks reportedly confessed in court
that he hacked the U.S. Democratic National Committee (DNC) and stole Hillary Clinton's
emails under the direction of agents from Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB)"
PUTIN ORDERED THEFT OF CLINTON'S EMAILS FROM DNC, RUSSIAN HACKER CONFESSES
BY CRISTINA MAZA ON 12/12/17
in which she stated that not only did Putin 'annex Crimea' but also invaded Ukraine,
among other things. None of her statements were backed up by any facts, which
apparently are irrelevant anymore. Wikipedia has an interesting bio on her.
Bob Van Noy , December 14, 2017 at 9:57 am
Thank you irina for that "catch". I'm a long time reader of "The Atlantic Magazine" well
aware of its long, liberal history and was surprised to find David Frum reporting there.
David was a speech writer for W. Bush and apparently came up with the infamous "Axis of Evil"
tag for President Bush's State Of The Union speech. I'll link the Wikipedia page below for
those interested. I'm concerned that propaganda has spread far and wide
Despite its extremely conclusive title and substance, the Newsweek article later admits
the extremely suspect nature of the accusation, and the lack of any evidence whatsoever:
"Andrei Soldatov an expert on Russian cybersecurity, said he believes Kozlovsky invented
the story about his direction from the FSB for personal gain. 'I've been communicating with
[Kozlovsky] for four months, and he has failed to give me any proof or answer my questions,"
Soldatov told Newsweek .'He was put in jail by these guys so it could be out of revenge, or
he wanted to make a deal with the FSB,'"
Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is
unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American
Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers
consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/
Perhaps another quasi-religious CIA front like Fethullah Gulen's madrassas in Turkey and
across central Asia.
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:13 pm
They keep publishing the same horseshit just like Pravda did in the Soviet era and just
like the Voelkischer Beobachter and Stuermer did during the Nazi era. I guess the uninformed
hoi polloi get so used to it in these situations that they accept the situation, like ducks
and frogs accept watery ponds as their environments.
Manfred Whimplebottem , December 14, 2017 at 9:20 pm
I think I heard a similar story from newsweek months ago, looks like someone took the
deal(?).
FBI Probe Into Clinton Emails Prompted Offer of Cash, Citizenship for Confession, Russian
Hacker Claims
"On October 5, 2016, days before U.S. intelligence publicly accused Russia of endorsing an
infiltration of Democratic Party officials' emails, Nikulin was arrested in Prague at the
request of the U.S. on separate hacking charges. Now, Nikulin claims U.S. authorities tried
to pin the email scandal on him."
"ikulin's lawyer, Martin Sadilek, [claims] that the FBI visited him at least a couple of
times, offering to drop the charges and grant him U.S. citizenship as well as cash and an
apartment in the U.S. if the Russian national confessed to participating in the 2016 hacks of
Clinton campaign chief John Podesta's emails in July."
"[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton's inbox for [U.S.
President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin]," Nikulin wrote"
At that time, it wasn't known why Mr. Strzok was transferred/whatever from
counter-intelligence, but since then it has been revealed that Mr. Mueller did so for his (
Strzok) political opinions. That would seem a fair thing to do. What's the problem? Might be
right-wing fear.
Marko , December 14, 2017 at 4:43 am
" What's the problem? "
C'mon , man. Given Strzok's position and his influence on Russiagate AND the earlier
Hillarygate investigations , the fact that he was transferred in July is of little comfort.
Any damage he could do he'd already done by then. Jim Jordan will explain it to you , in six minutes :
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:16 pm
The problem is that when that story first appeared, nothing else was disclosed. The
damning material took months to emerge, as did Strzok's links to the Clinton coverups and the
links to the fake dossier and the FBI's "anti-Trump" insurance policy. Those who want to
believe the regime's falsehoods can always come up with rationales such as "I guess the
government people know best" which was typical of the answers to sceptics against the Viet
Nam war in the mid '60s.
Realist , December 14, 2017 at 2:43 am
It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a
Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if
there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under
banner headlines long ago. Instead, we get nothing but one set of sensational fake headlines
unsupported by any actual facts time and again, all in an attempt to fool the
mentally-challenged public. Yet the NYT and the rest of the yellow press continue to insist
that the evidence continues to mount against Trump. What a laugh. Moreover, these deceivers
are the people that want what they define as "fake news" to be systematically rooted out and
stricken from the public record so no thinking person can ever see it. And, they tell us this
is a free and democratic country. Got any more jokes?
Homina , December 14, 2017 at 3:48 am
Totally agree. And it reminds me of some reality "quest" shows about finding Bigfoot or
the Oak Island treasure, etc.
If those were actually found, it would be reported a day or two later, unless every single
one of the producers, actors, workers, etc. were under an NDA enough to wait until some
season finale a year or two later. Ridiculous. If Bigfoot exists that will come to us on
news, and big news, international. It won't come on a 4th season of some Bigfoot-finding
show.
So yeah, season two of the Trump-Russia whatever.
Maddow/MSNBC and the likes have gone utterly insane. Bigfoot behind every door. Scant or
zero facts, who cares. This isn't like Benghazi or White Water or Bush's air service this is
24/7 inane terrible journalism from nearly every journalist publisher in the US.
exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:30 am
I think that the new evidence discussed provides Trump the cover to pull the plug on the
whole Mueller operation despite the Alabama debacle. Sure the media talkers would compare it
to the Saturday Night Massacre, but the proven falsity of the whole absurd circus renders
risible such comparisons. While I don't expect much out of Trump, the championing of this
absurd theory by the mainstream democrats renders them an existential threat to civilization
itself based on the fact that enmity with Russia seems to be their be-all and end-all. It is
all not only criminal but profoundly stupid.
Homina , December 14, 2017 at 3:40 am
"The primary purpose of Mr. Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump. It's to
protect America's national security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether
a presidential campaign conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election
– a proposition that grows more plausible every day."
1. How is Russia an "adversary"? And even if Russia is, that's weasel-words and
subjective. Is Turkey a foreign adversary? Is Israel? China? Mexico?
2. Why wasn't there decades ago a special Election Panel looking into foreign influence? I
guess it just started to happen in this last election though .Only with Putin!
3. "more plausible" .this fucking idiot. After a year of headlines of "this is what will
finally take down Trump" and such, all with zero reasons, zero facts .Is naught more
plausible than naught?
4. I detest Trump. I more detest hypocrites and idiots.
But sure, "blah blah more possible take trump down" says some idiot or collective NYT
idiocy. Bore me more your next op-ed, you partisan morons.
Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Yes, the NYT is mere propaganda. We already know that "a presidential campaign conspired
with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election" because Clinton's top ten donors
were all Zionists, and she supported all wars for Israel.
Rich Monahan , December 14, 2017 at 3:57 am
Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI
operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be
president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why
has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker?
Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:59 am
The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super
power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking
detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of
influence. That is unacceptable to the empire.
RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from
power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist,
but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and
cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I
suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate.
And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort.
M C Martin , December 14, 2017 at 6:08 am
Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's
needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney
says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict
the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating
back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we
now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK,
Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations?
While I can't endorse our government's illegal and immoral collection and storing of
virtually all communications among people, if the store is there and is used against petty
criminals, why couldn't or shouldn't it be used to detect and prove the illegal acts of our
government power brokers?
"... What I also remember well however, is how little support PATCO was able to garnish from other unionized workers (and in many cases from union leadership as well). It seemed to me at the time that some of the strongest hostility came from rank and file of trade and utilities unions. ..."
"... I recall too that it was in the 1970's that the threat of "relocation", at that time mainly from the more heavily unionized north and northeastern states to the union-hostile south began to play a major role in the destruction of the power of labor. ..."
"... And I remember the beginning of the financialization of the American corporation that I experienced on a "micro" scale, a kid lucky enough to have a summer job while in university at a large resource-extraction corporation's HQ in NYC. I recall white-collar conversations about compensation and about how salaries had steadily risen over the past decade (the company was said to be doing "really well"). And I remember how towards the end of my summer stints more and more conversation was about stock prices and Wall Street favor and about the new executive managerial style brought in by "those young MBA"s", and about (for the first time) worries of a "take-over" by "outsiders" (the company, although public, had had family leadership for many years). ..."
"... And most of all I remember how gradually the material-economic components to the identity of the blue-collar and middle class worker were written out of existence. The great narrative, the myth that explains to us what it means to be "an American," no longer included any hint of class solidarity, of the kind of work we did, the pay we earned, the common living conditions in the small towns and urban neighborhoods and "cookie-cutter" suburbs of America. ..."
"... Formerly the struggle of economic and material improvement was seen by most ordinary Americas as a struggle for certain necessary conditions to maintain, strengthen, and perpetuate a way-of-life in which the common core assumptions about the "good life" remained basically stable and unchallenged: family, stable job, residential security, public schools, public places -- neighborhood bars, coffee shops, civic clubs, parks and playgrounds -- where people could meet and interact as social equals. ..."
"... The financialization of the economy, indeed of social life itself to a great extent, meant the drive for the maximization of private profit and the pursuit of interests and 'efficiencies" conceived entirely apart from any impact of the common good of society as a whole, and should have been seen as a grave threat to the very conditions of material and economic security, only recently achieved, that were the foundation of these other civic and social institutions. ..."
"... Instead, through a grand and diabolical deceit cynically promulgated by a mostly Republican capitalist class of privilege, but also aided and abetted by a "new Left" that increasingly postured itself as the enemy of this older and more traditional way of life ..."
The 1970's was in many ways the watershed decade for the radical transformation of the
American economy and society, even more than the 1960's (I lived through both as a young
man). I have yet to read the definitive social-critical analysis of these years to explain
the changes that, looking back, seem to have taken the country of my childhood right out from
under me, gone forever, increasingly difficult to remember through the fog of nostalgia that
tends to distort as much as to reveal.
Some of the things I do remember about this time include the PATCO (air traffic
controllers) strike, very well. What is often not mentioned is that PATCO was attempting to
do something that had not been permitted under federal civil service law, that is, bargain
for wages as well as working conditions. Wage bargaining, PATCO correctly assessed, was the
issue that made or broke unions and had enabled state and local public employees to finally
begin to earn a decent, living wage beginning in the 1960's (think the iconic Mike Quill and
the NYC TWU).
Reagan correctly (from his point of view) saw that to fail to break PATCO on this issue
was to open the floodgates and turn the U.S. civil services into something akin to its
European counterpart, with the possibility of general strikes and the rest. And of course to
encourage private sector unions in their drive to organize and to change federal and state
labor laws to strengthen the right to picket strike and organize.
What I also remember well however, is how little support PATCO was able to garnish
from other unionized workers (and in many cases from union leadership as well). It seemed to
me at the time that some of the strongest hostility came from rank and file of trade and
utilities unions. Of course Reagan, following the Nixon playbook, shrewdly played the
patriot-nationalist card, painting PATCO as a threat to national security as well as composed
of a bunch of ingrates who should have been happy to have jobs. But by then the segmentation
of the American workforce, a tactic that played right into the hands of the
corporate-capitalist class was in full swing. The American worker lucky enough to possess a
decent paying skilled or semi-skilled union job was being taught to see their situation as
morally "deserved" and to see newer aspirants to similar positions, whether recently arrived
immigrants or members of racial-ethnic groups previously suppressed by law, custom and
prejudice as threats/dangers/enemies of their own recently won status.
I recall too that it was in the 1970's that the threat of "relocation", at that time
mainly from the more heavily unionized north and northeastern states to the union-hostile
south began to play a major role in the destruction of the power of labor. This was the
beginning of the "globalization" factor and of the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs that has
been commented on extensively and that took off a decade or so later. What is often not
recalled is that unions and other pro-labor groups attempted to lobby Congress to amend the
NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) and to appoint labor-friendly members to the NLRB to
ensure that plant relocation would be a mandatory subject of bargaining and thus prevent
unilateral (by capital ownership) relocation or the threat of relocation as a means to
destroy the power of labor. They were, of course, not successful, and factories and business
continued to move away from traditional centers of labor power and worker-protections, first
to so-called "right-to-work" states and eventually to Asia.
And I remember the beginning of the financialization of the American corporation that
I experienced on a "micro" scale, a kid lucky enough to have a summer job while in university
at a large resource-extraction corporation's HQ in NYC. I recall white-collar conversations
about compensation and about how salaries had steadily risen over the past decade (the
company was said to be doing "really well"). And I remember how towards the end of my summer
stints more and more conversation was about stock prices and Wall Street favor and about the
new executive managerial style brought in by "those young MBA"s", and about (for the first
time) worries of a "take-over" by "outsiders" (the company, although public, had had family
leadership for many years).
And most of all I remember how gradually the material-economic components to the
identity of the blue-collar and middle class worker were written out of existence. The great
narrative, the myth that explains to us what it means to be "an American," no longer included
any hint of class solidarity, of the kind of work we did, the pay we earned, the common
living conditions in the small towns and urban neighborhoods and "cookie-cutter" suburbs of
America.
Formerly the struggle of economic and material improvement was seen by most ordinary
Americas as a struggle for certain necessary conditions to maintain, strengthen, and
perpetuate a way-of-life in which the common core assumptions about the "good life" remained
basically stable and unchallenged: family, stable job, residential security, public schools,
public places -- neighborhood bars, coffee shops, civic clubs, parks and playgrounds -- where
people could meet and interact as social equals.
The financialization of the economy, indeed of social life itself to a great extent,
meant the drive for the maximization of private profit and the pursuit of interests and
'efficiencies" conceived entirely apart from any impact of the common good of society as a
whole, and should have been seen as a grave threat to the very conditions of material and
economic security, only recently achieved, that were the foundation of these other civic and
social institutions.
Instead, through a grand and diabolical deceit cynically promulgated by a mostly
Republican capitalist class of privilege, but also aided and abetted by a "new Left" that
increasingly postured itself as the enemy of this older and more traditional way of life, the
enemy was reconceived as the new "elites", the young, urban, hipster "Leftist" who despised
the old ways and represented a singular assault on everything good about America.
Meanwhile, steadily, relentlessly, the material conditions and hard-won economic
improvements that had gradually made small town, urban-neighborhood, and inner-suburban life
decent and livable were being destroyed by a class that paid lip-service to Capra's Bedford
Falls while at the same time endlessly working to transform it into Pottersville.
"... At the time, I agreed, but I did note that the neoconservatives have proven to be remarkable resilient, particularly as many of them have remained true to their Democratic Party values on nearly everything but foreign policy, where they are irredeemable hawks, hostile to Russia and Iran and always reliably in the corner of Israel. In short, many neocons can be unmasked as Hillary Clinton Democrats if one looks at them issue by issue, which certainly helps to explain some subsequent developments. ..."
"... Multiple sources are predicting Tillerson out and Mike Pompeo in at State Department with Pompeo replaced at CIA by Senator Tom Cotton. The White House is denying the story, calling it "fake news," but it is clear that Trump is uncomfortable with the current arrangement and Tillerson will be gone sooner or later. ..."
"... Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State replaces a somewhat bumbling businessman adept at dealing in energy futures contracts who has been struggling with reducing State's enormously bloated payroll. Pompeo, a real hard-nosed political hardliner who tends to see complex issues in fairly simplistic ways, has become a presidential confidant, briefing Trump frequently on the state of the world, most recently pushing for the horrific decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. ..."
"... Pompeo would like to turn the United States into an unleashed wrecking ball directed against the enemies of the American Way and he appears intent on starting that process in the Middle East. ..."
"... And Pompeo will be replaced as CIA Director by Tom Cotton. The less said about Tom the better, but I will attempt to summarize in 8 words here: Tom is completely owned by the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... I do not wish to imply that Cotton and Pompeo are somehow stupid, but they do tend to see the world in a very monochromatic fashion, just like their boss. Pompeo was first in his class at West Point and Cotton graduated from Harvard as an undergrad and also from the Law School ..."
"... Haley really is stupid. And ambitious. And is also owned by the Israel Lobby, which appears to be a thread that runs its way through all the Trump foreign policy appointees. ..."
"... Neocon watchers will undoubtedly note that big names like Brill Kristol, the Kagans, Michael Chertoff and Max Boot will not be showing up in government. True, but that is because they will instead be working through their foundations, of which FDD is only one. The Alliance for Securing Democracy, which has recently sprung up in lobby-land, markets itself as "bipartisan, and transatlantic " but it actually is pure neocon. ..."
"... The replacement of former political appointees in the government has been so slow in Trump's first year that it has actually benefited the neocons in their recovery. Many survivors of the two previous administrations are still in place, nearly all of whom reflect the hawkishness prevalent during 2001-2016. They will be supplemented by second and third tier neoconservatives, who will fill in the policy gaps, virtually guaranteeing that the neocon crafted foreign policy that has been around for the past sixteen years will be here for some time longer. ..."
Back during the admittedly brief shock and awe period that immediately followed on the Trump
electoral victory, it appeared that there might be an actual realignment of American foreign
policy. The neoconservatives virtually unanimously had opposed Donald Trump in the most vile
terms, both in the GOP primaries and during the actual electoral campaign, making clear that
Hillary was their choice for a future full of unrelenting, ideologically driven warfare to
convert the world to democracy. By that metric, one would assume that Trump would prefer to be
roasted on a spit rather than have neocons on his national security team, and many in the
punditry did agree with that analysis and went on to share that view.
At the time, I agreed, but I did note that the neoconservatives have proven to be
remarkable resilient, particularly as many of them have remained true to their Democratic Party
values on nearly everything but foreign policy, where they are irredeemable hawks, hostile to
Russia and Iran and always reliably in the corner of Israel. In short, many neocons can be
unmasked as Hillary Clinton Democrats if one looks at them issue by issue, which certainly
helps to explain some subsequent developments.
Some Washington observers who actually care about such things have been writing how there
has been a kumbaya process going on between self-described conservative neocons and liberal
interventionists. Katrina vanden Heuvel describes
the progressive hawks as "the essential-country crowd," borrowing a phrase from
ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
There are inevitably minor disconnects between the two groups based on their motives for
aggression – Democrats claim to do it to bring democracy and freedom while Republicans
say they do it to enhance national security. Both are lying in any event as it all comes down
to great power rivalries, with big powerful nations pushing smaller weaker nations around
because they are able to get away with it and feel more comfortable if everyone lines up behind
them.
So everyone in Washington and New York's financial services industry agrees that a more
assertive America is a better America even when the reality is that no one winds up with either
democracy or security. Which brings us to the latest shuffle in the Donald Trump cabinet and
what it is likely to mean down the road. Multiple sources are predicting Tillerson out and
Mike Pompeo in at State Department with Pompeo replaced at CIA by Senator Tom Cotton. The White
House is denying the story, calling it "fake news," but it is clear that Trump is uncomfortable
with the current arrangement and Tillerson will be gone sooner or later.
Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State replaces a somewhat bumbling businessman adept at
dealing in energy futures contracts who has been struggling with reducing State's enormously
bloated payroll. Pompeo, a real hard-nosed political hardliner who tends to see complex issues
in fairly simplistic ways, has become a presidential confidant, briefing Trump frequently on
the state of the world, most recently pushing for the horrific decision to recognize Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel. In a
recent speech , Pompeo criticized the CIA, observing that it had both forgotten how to spy,
which is almost certainly true, while adding that it will have to become "more vicious" to
accomplish its mission of making the United States "safe." Pompeo would like to turn the
United States into an unleashed wrecking ball directed against the enemies of the American Way
and he appears intent on starting that process in the Middle East.
And Pompeo will be replaced as CIA Director by Tom Cotton. The less said about Tom the
better, but I will attempt to summarize in 8 words here: Tom is completely owned by the Israel
Lobby. In his 2014 election as junior Senator from Arkansas, he received $1 million from
the Emergency Committee for Israel headed by Bill Kristol as well as additional assistance from
the Republican Jewish Coalition. In March 2015, Tom paid those supporters back when 47
Republican United States Senators signed a letter
allegedly written by him that was then sent to the Iranian government directly, warning
that any agreement over that country's nuclear program reached with President Barack Obama
would likely be overturned by the Congress. The letter, which undercuts the authority of the
American president before an international audience, was signed by the entire Republican Party
leadership in the Senate and also included then presidential contenders Rand Paul, Marco Rubio
and Ted Cruz.
I do not wish to imply that Cotton and Pompeo are somehow stupid, but they do tend to
see the world in a very monochromatic fashion, just like their boss. Pompeo was first in his
class at West Point and Cotton graduated from Harvard as an undergrad and also from the Law
School . Trump claims to be the smartest person in the room no matter where he is
standing. But for all the academic credentials and other posturing, it is hard to imagine how
the new choices could possibly be worse from a common-sense perspective unless one includes
Nikki Haley, who is, fortunately, otherwise engaged. Haley really is stupid. And ambitious.
And is also owned by the Israel Lobby, which appears to be a thread that runs its way through
all the Trump foreign policy appointees.
What is wrong about the whole Trump team is that they all seem to believe that you can go
around the world kicking the shit out of everyone without there being any consequences. And
they all hate Iran for reasons that continue to be obscure but may be connected to their
relationships with – you guessed it – the neoconservatives and the Israeli
Lobby!
Yes, the neocons are back. I noted back in October that when Pompeo and National Security
Adviser H.R. McMaster wanted a friendly place to drop by to give a policy speech that would be
warmly received they went to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), whose
marketing masthead
slogan is "Fighting Terrorism and Promoting Freedom." FDD is currently neocon central, used
like the American Enterprise Institute was when Dick Cheney was Vice President and needed a
friendly audience. It is headed by Canadian Mark Dubowitz, whose passion in life is making sure
that sanctions on Iran are enforced to the letter. Unfortunately, it is not easy to deport a
Canadian.
Neocon watchers will undoubtedly note that big names like Brill Kristol, the Kagans,
Michael Chertoff and Max Boot will not be showing up in government. True, but that is because
they will instead be working through their foundations, of which FDD is only one. The Alliance
for Securing Democracy, which has recently sprung up in lobby-land, markets itself as
"bipartisan, and transatlantic " but it actually is pure neocon. Its goal is to "expose
Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States of America and Europe." It
includes the usual neocon names but also has the loyal Democratic opposition, including ex-CIA
Acting Director Mike Morell and Jake Sullivan, both of whom were top level advisers to Hillary
Clinton.
The replacement of former political appointees in the government has been so slow in
Trump's first year that it has actually benefited the neocons in their recovery. Many survivors
of the two previous administrations are still in place, nearly all of whom reflect the
hawkishness prevalent during 2001-2016. They will be supplemented by second and third tier
neoconservatives, who will fill in the policy gaps, virtually guaranteeing that the neocon
crafted foreign policy that has been around for the past sixteen years will be here for some
time longer.
What all this means is that, now that the Palestinians have been disposed of and the
Israelis rewarded, we can expect armed conflict with Iran within the next year, followed by
increased hostility towards Moscow as Russiagate continues to play out. I do not even want to
guess at what kind of insanity the gang in the West Wing Situation Room will come up with for
dealing with North Korea. The good news is that the builders of home bomb shelters, a booming
enterprise when I was growing up back in the 1950s and 1960s now used to cultivate mushrooms,
will be back in business.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
Of course, UNZ is more radical on this issue then most (actually they use the terms "Jew", "neocons" and "Zionist" almost interchangeably,
but in most case the meaning is neocon -- ideology, not nationality ) , but it looks like public support of neocons in the USA
now dropped dramatically, especially after their attacks on Trump during 2016 elections.
Notable quotes:
"... They are not a threat to the US and while I think we will be in a support capacity -- with Israel obviously -- to a bunker buster attack it will be regarded as US backed war throughout the Islamic world. Trump may be too weak to resist Netanyahu's best sales pitch. ..."
"... The Neocons are turning up at MSNBC of late. In addition to Podhoretz, Brooks, Kristol, we are now seeing E. Johnson, B. Stephens, D. Pletka on the scene as regular rotation players. No doubt where they will be leading. Moving in where opportunities abound for some reason? ..."
"... "Trump may be too weak to resist Netanyahu's best sales pitch." Trump is an Israeli sycophant ..a loser. ..."
"... That US missile attack on the Syrian airport cost Trump a lot of domestic and international support for zero benefit... ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... Yet if you point out the obvious, that our foreign policy has been hijacked by an element whose first loyalty is to Israel, you will catch all sorts of hell, be banned from making comments on blogs and news sites, or like the brave Mr. Giraldi, lose your job. And be blasted with the worn-out canard of being an anti-Semite. Maybe even a Jew hater, all because you show concern for the nation you love and are loyal to. ..."
"... While Pompeo would be not good, Tillerson has been a big disappointment with his latest statements on Crimea and Ukraine included. ..."
"... You obviously do not live here. 99% of Americans have a flat screen TV installed in their living rooms and believe everything (jooie managed images and info) spewing forth from it. ..."
"... The "problem" is that the whole American "business model" is based on global economic supremacy, which means, essentially, the dollar as world reserve currency. If that goes, the whole US house of cards will probably implode, Soviet-style. That requires unchallenged American "world leadership". The big threat to the "American model" isn't the EU and certainly not the Russian Federation. It's China. ..."
"... Yeah, yeah, yeah big bad ISIS. The Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. "Keeping Fools and Idiots At Each Other's Throats". Since 1950. I don't know what to tell you ..."
"... The US is expansionist, projecting itself all over the globe and uses force against anyone who resists. Force is all it understands. What happens when the irresistible force bumps into the immovable object? War hysteria, of which we've had an unending amount for the past three generations. Objectively there's nothing conservative about the so-called neocons. They're hardly any different from fascists except the rhetoric is different. Mussolini had limits as to how much territory he wanted to conquer for his empire unlike the US which recognizes no limits. ..."
"... BTW, I still don't see an attack on Iran as being very likely. If Russia and China would not greenlight an attack on Syria, they will be doubly reluctant to greenlight an attack on Iran. ..."
"... The "democracy" the neocons want to push is the one in which (((mass media))) successfully lobotomizes the electorate into thinking it has democracy. The zombies then make their way to the polls seeking "hope & change" but with no choice. Hegemony is the goal, not democracy. ..."
"... American has an all volunteer armed forces (mercenary), they are paid to kill or be killed, their fates is only a few seconds on the screens if the MSM decided to air them, otherwise the wars and the American soldiers' lives have nothing to do with the American public. Mayhem in far away land in out of sight and out of mind. ..."
"... The real issue is how to finance the war, as long as the war does not cause hyper inflation in the USA, the warmongers in the Washington beltway will go ahead with the war without much concern, with EU, Australia, Japan and S Korea in line paying the bills, the American should be able to wage another regime change war in the ME without much difficulty. ..."
"... Having some small portion of Scotch-Irish ancestry myself, and having ancestors who pioneered Tennessee, I don't think General Andrew Jackson would support the Israel First foreign policy of Tom Cotton. ..."
"... Yet if you point out the obvious, that our foreign policy has been hijacked by an element whose first loyalty is to Israel, you will catch all sorts of hell, be banned from making comments on blogs and news sites, or like the brave Mr. Giraldi, lose your job. And be blasted with the worn-out canard of being an anti-Semite. Maybe even a Jew hater, all because you show concern for the nation you love and are loyal to. ..."
"... Re: At the time, I agreed, but I did note that the neoconservatives have proven to be remarkable resilient, particularly as many of them have remained true to their Democratic Party values on nearly everything but foreign policy, where they are irredeemable hawks, hostile to Russia and Iran and always reliably in the corner of Israel ..."
"... And when it comes to foreign policy, of course the Neocons are globalists, like the international bankers whom they serve. ..."
"... The Neocons are nothing less than a parasitical foreign body which has us thinking in accordance with its interests; in fact they are mortal enemies, nothing less. ..."
"... Wall Street power held a gun to the head of the entire US economy and said 'Give us money, OR we will take ALL OF YOU down with us.' ..."
"... My knowledge of foreign policy is headline-quality only. My knowledge of some domestic policy is pretty good. I've been on the public stump in my area. The reality of American policy, as I've seen it, is that it's bought and paid for. There is no "public interest", no "national interest". I'm not even sure there's an America, in the sense of a people joined by some common values. Sometimes I think of America as an agglomeration of rackets. You're goddamned right I don't like thinking this way. ..."
"... Dump's second big mistake was firing Comey again on the advice of Kushner. Which got the Mueller ball rolling. Some have rightly drawn the parallels of Kushner whispering in Dump's ear to the same role of Kissinger vis a vis Nixon's downfall ..."
"... Then Kushner appeared to connive with his buddy KSA Clown Prince MBS to engineer the Hariri fiasco [which Tillerson managed to "deftly undo..."] ..."
"... That is a useless statement on many levels Tillerson deftly managed what is arguably America's most important corporation in what is surely the most strategic and geopolitical global industry energy ..."
"... The neocons are of course insane they are picking fights with Iran, Venezuela and others who are going to be the first to ditch the petrodollar and accelerate the tipping point to the new global financial order that is going to impoverish the US overnight ..."
"... The same neocons are also the ones who are undermining US demographics because their Ponzi scheme economy is based on perpetual growth which, in turn, requires perpetual population growth which means more immigration. Also the immigration keeps the wages low which is just extra gravy for the Plutocracy ..."
I'm really concerned an attack on Iran is a correct assessment Philip. They are not a threat to the US and while I think
we will be in a support capacity -- with Israel obviously -- to a bunker buster attack it will be regarded as US backed
war throughout the Islamic world. Trump may be too weak to resist Netanyahu's best sales pitch.
Tillerson will be gone sooner or later: No question, perhaps the week between Christmas and New Year?
Cotton and Pompeo: Pompeo may have problems with the Mueller probe. Cotton has a number of rumors in his
past and maybe they are just unfortunate talk? But I don't see him at CIA (we shall see?)
The Neocons are turning up at MSNBC of late. In addition to Podhoretz, Brooks, Kristol, we are now seeing E. Johnson, B.
Stephens, D. Pletka on the scene as regular rotation players. No doubt where they will be leading. Moving in where opportunities
abound for some reason? At least two (Halperin, Ford) aren't around anymore on Coffee Joe.
We're all just hapless passengers on the Neocon Titanic, unable to influence what's playing out on the bridge. Steady as she goes
on the unsinkable U.S.S.
From the movie Iron Sky, meant as a condemnation of Nazism, but inadvertently conveying a sensible message about the merits of
purity.
Renate Richter:
This is very simple. The world is sick, but we are the doctors. The world is anemic, but we are the vitamin. The world
is weary, but we are the strength. We are here to make the world healthy once again, with hard work, with honesty, with
clarity, with decency. We are the product of loving mothers and brave fathers. We are the embodiment of love and bravery!
We are the gift of both God and Science. We are the answer to the question. We are the promise delivered to all mankind.
For that, we raise our hands to one Nation. We step to the beat of one drum. We march to the beat of one heart and it is
this song that we will sing to this world. We are the people who carry the children on our shoulders in the same way that
our fathers carried us and their fathers carried them. We are the one people united and strong. We are the one people with
certainty, moral certainty. We are invincible and we have no fear because the truth makes us wise.
Well, if conflict is simply air assault on Iranian nuclear facilities that shouldn't be a problem for either party. Israelis/Americans
bomb a bit and then everything goes back to normal. Something as that cruise missile launch on Syria.
That US missile attack on the Syrian airport cost Trump a lot of domestic and international support for zero benefit...
I do not even want to guess at what kind of insanity
Insanity. That's the key. Sick beyond redemption. No rational person could ever begin to understand their motives. Somehow
the jackals need to be restrained.
We see the same usual suspects time and again, waving their pom-poms lustily cheering on endless war that does NOT help or benefit
the USA. In fact, it is destroying our nation economically, spiritually and politically.
From an April 2003 Haaretz article:
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.
Yet if you point out the obvious, that our foreign policy has been hijacked by an element whose first loyalty is to Israel,
you will catch all sorts of hell, be banned from making comments on blogs and news sites, or like the brave Mr. Giraldi, lose
your job. And be blasted with the worn-out canard of being an anti-Semite. Maybe even a Jew hater, all because you show concern
for the nation you love and are loyal to.
Will Americans ever realize they are being played for fools by a country and Zionist con artists which doesn't give a tinkers
damn about us or will we keep jumping up and down to the pom-pom waving?
Of course I hope you're wrong Phil. While Pompeo would be not good, Tillerson has been a big disappointment with his latest
statements on Crimea and Ukraine included.
Cotton would be another matter altogether and even though there is a 'collegial spirit' in the Senate I would hope that Rand
Paul and other senators with common sense would squash this guys nomination. Even if he has to carry himself back from Kentucky,
broken ribs and all, to squash this Neocon stooge Cotton. Also, I'm hopping there are some boys in the closet when it comes to
Cotton. lol
Faith in Bush the OLDER is misplaced. In 1979 he stood shoulder to shoulder w/ Bibi and Benzion Netenyahu, and Midge Decter
& other neocons, in Jerusalem, as they drafted the blueprint for GWOT. Planning went so far as to name the 7 states to take out.
USSR was #1 at the time. Jews got Jews Who had been highly educated at Russian expense – out of Russia, now Russia is back in
the crosshairs.
Americans are stoopid and cowardly fucks for being so easily manipulated by the Jew.
Not so much anymore. Meanwhile, didn't the Muslims spend five years fighting each-other right on the Israeli border? But wait
– they did attack Israel once – and apologised:
"the American public isn't as gullible as before ."
Ha, Ha. You obviously do not live here. 99% of Americans have a flat screen TV installed in their living rooms and believe
everything (jooie managed images and info) spewing forth from it. More than 50% of Americans have multiple flat screen TV
in their homes so they can be sure not to miss the latest disinfo or lies.
The "problem" is that the whole American "business model" is based on global economic supremacy, which means, essentially,
the dollar as world reserve currency. If that goes, the whole US house of cards will probably implode, Soviet-style. That requires
unchallenged American "world leadership". The big threat to the "American model" isn't the EU and certainly not the Russian Federation.
It's China. 1.4 billion people and rapidly heading for global economic hegemony. To say nothing of a rising India at 1.2
billion. At 300 million, the US is small beans. How to ward off the Yellow Peril? That's the problem the US hegemonists had to
resolve.
Yeah, yeah, yeah big bad ISIS. The Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. "Keeping Fools and Idiots At Each Other's Throats".
Since 1950. I don't know what to tell you ..
It's not that difficult to strategize HOW to go about "restraining the jackals." 99 44/100% of what ziocons accuse others of
is projection. They say, "They [_____ Iran, ISIS, Palestinians, Russians - fill in the blank] understand only force." This projects
that the only thing that will restrain psychopathic Israel is force.
When an Iranian nuclear engineer was assassinated in Tehran, Ronen Bergman told Brian Williams that "Israel has used assassination
more than any other state; not even Stalin or Hitler used assassination as much as Israel. . . ."
So far the President has proved much smarter than most people expected him to be
Exactamundo, Ben Frank (any relation to Anne, Princess of the Ballpoint Pen?). Naming Jerusalem the capital of Israel was fucking
brilliant. Don't you worry your pretty little head about all the US forces in the multiple bases in the region that are accessible
to mad-as-hornets Muslims; Israel will have their backs, fer shur.
--
Come to think of it, maybe Trump can burnish his "much smarter-ness" by taking a page out of Reagan's playbook: Immediately
after the first US soldier is plinked by an Angry Arab, Trump should pull ALL US FORCES out of the region: do a Reagan-post-Black
Hawk down.
If the Israelis want to stir the pot, let them stand over the steam-heat and wield the spoon. We're outa there.
The people of the ME can't catch a break. Since being pried away from the Ottoman empire a hundred years ago they've been the
plaything of various western countries. Their national borders drawn up by distant foreigners, they've been interfered with constantly,
their regimes dictated by foreigners. Then the selfsame westerners turn around and point to their backwardness as proof that they're
incapable of doing anything on their own.
The US is expansionist, projecting itself all over the globe and uses force against
anyone who resists. Force is all it understands. What happens when the irresistible force bumps into the immovable object? War
hysteria, of which we've had an unending amount for the past three generations. Objectively there's nothing conservative about
the so-called neocons. They're hardly any different from fascists except the rhetoric is different. Mussolini had limits as to
how much territory he wanted to conquer for his empire unlike the US which recognizes no limits.
it was faint, and barely perceptible, but at some level, I did actually tremble when I read those words. Cotton is the new
John McCain. The ultimate traitor to this nation and its people and all people of good will on the planet and every tenet of decency
known to the universe
a lickspittle to Sheldon Adelson and everything that repulsive toad represents. if Cotton is exalted to head the CIA, I'll
have to think very hard about leaving these shores. perhaps Bobby Fischer was right, and the ZUSA is endemically, irredeemably
evil.
there can be no doubt that the zio-Fiend is the incarnation of evil itself, but I always keep hoping that the good people of
the ZUS will repudiate the zio-Fiend- that has them waging serial wars all over the planet to benefit the Jews. As their infrastructure
crumbles back home, and their veterans can't get health care, and the jobs are 'in' and outsourced to the third world. what will
it take to wake up the bovine, cud-chewing sheople?!
their children come home in body bags, or with their souls so eviscerated by the sheer evil of the wars they're forced to fight,
that they often just 'snuff it' as the only escape from their nightmares. (and the realization that the ZUSA is a drooling fiend
and that they've murdered innocent people and destroyed nations on its behalf)
those young people can not abide the evil that the ZUS government has become, and their only salvation is to end their young
lives.
for those of us with more choices at hand, why can't we finally and simply repudiate the zio-scum who've done us and so many
others so much harm?!
PS If the USA / American people and their representatives conformed foreign as well as economic policy to the vision of George
Washington rather than Louis Brandeis -- > Benjamin Netanyahu & fellow psychopaths and traitors, USA would engage with
OBOR rather than attempt to destroy it.
Destruction (and deception) are the way of the Talmudists. Even Heinrich Graetz, the Germanophilic Jew who authored the first
modern history of the Jewish people, had nothing but opprobrium to heap on Talmudists.
The American 'way' is not the way of the Talmud. Christian values are not Talmudic values. George Washington's
legacy was not Talmudic, it was America First :
doesn't matter, we are still the ones doing the dirty work. there is no escape from the responsibility. it is like a hitman
claiming he is a professional, it is just business. that doesn't fly.
What's with it with neoconservative Israel lackeys like Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz graduating from a prestigious and supposedly left-wing
school like Harvard? Are they book-smart without common sense? The country would be better off if Cotton stayed in the Senate.
He can do less damage if 1 of 100. Plus, the shelf-life of anyone in the Trump admin seems to be very short – and he'd better
not have groped any Harvard classmates, who might just be waiting in the wings to destroy his career.
As recently as a month ago, I was still willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. But it should now be obvious to all what
a total zio-muppet he really is. If there's any silver lining in all of this, it's the fact that the Jew-media have expended so
much effort in attacking Trump that he'll now make a very poor spokesman for their cause abroad.
BTW, I still don't see an attack on Iran as being very likely. If Russia and China would not greenlight an attack on Syria,
they will be doubly reluctant to greenlight an attack on Iran.
The "democracy" the neocons want to push is the one in which (((mass media))) successfully lobotomizes the electorate into
thinking it has democracy. The zombies then make their way to the polls seeking "hope & change" but with no choice. Hegemony is
the goal, not democracy.
Trump may have been skeptical as a candidate about America's role as policeman of the world, but the establishment knives are
out and he might (correctly?) surmise that the only way to stay in office is to make the ziocons happy. Even Bill Kristol would
see the error in never-Trump_vs_deep_state if bombs started falling on Iran.
American has an all volunteer armed forces (mercenary), they are paid to kill or be killed, their fates is only a few seconds
on the screens if the MSM decided to air them, otherwise the wars and the American soldiers' lives have nothing to do with the
American public. Mayhem in far away land in out of sight and out of mind. Citing the American public gullibility is really
a residual sentiment of old days cold war mentality and trying to attach some kind of morality to the wars the American has been
fighting. American has long been demonstrated they are just as morally defunct imperialist as the British and their mentor, the
Romans.
The real issue is how to finance the war, as long as the war does not cause hyper inflation in the USA, the warmongers
in the Washington beltway will go ahead with the war without much concern, with EU, Australia, Japan and S Korea in line paying
the bills, the American should be able to wage another regime change war in the ME without much difficulty.
Tom Cotton is not to be trusted. Many gave US Senator Tom Cotton credit for his offering a bill that would cut legal immigration
in half and would significantly reduce illegal immigration. It is now clear that the immigration reduction ploy proffered by Tom
Cotton was a sneaky way to mollify the White Core American voter base of President Trump.
Tom Cotton is a stooge for Sheldon
Adelson and the Neo-Conservatives. The Neo-Conservatives know they are highly vulnerable on the immigration issue and the national
question. That is why they sent their puppet Tom Cotton out with instructions to bang the pot on reducing immigration.
Recently, the Neo-Conservative-controlled, Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal gave Tom Cotton a half page, above the fold puff
piece where Tom Cotton is said to be offering a foreign policy fit for "Jacksonian America." I think Tom Cotton must be referring
to Michael Jackson or some other Jackson, and not General Andrew Jackson. Having some small portion of Scotch-Irish ancestry
myself, and having ancestors who pioneered Tennessee, I don't think General Andrew Jackson would support the Israel First foreign
policy of Tom Cotton.
IMMIGRATION and the NATIONAL QUESTION are the two things that will finally dislodge the nation-wrecking Neo-Conservatives and
their politician puppets from the ruling class of the American Empire.
Yet if you point out the obvious, that our foreign policy has been hijacked by an element whose first loyalty is to
Israel, you will catch all sorts of hell, be banned from making comments on blogs and news sites, or like the brave Mr. Giraldi,
lose your job. And be blasted with the worn-out canard of being an anti-Semite. Maybe even a Jew hater, all because you show
concern for the nation you love and are loyal to.
If you remember what happened to Rick Sanchez, the former talking head of NBC and CNN when he was pushed into calling out the
Jew in a 'gotcha' interview as he sarcastically replied that yeah Jews are underrepresented in the media. He was gone in '60 seconds'!
Re: At the time, I agreed, but I did note that the neoconservatives have proven to be remarkable resilient, particularly as
many of them have remained true to their Democratic Party values on nearly everything but foreign policy, where they are irredeemable
hawks, hostile to Russia and Iran and always reliably in the corner of Israel.
-- -- -- -- -
Of course. The Jewish Neocons and their "useful idiots," whether "bought and paid for" or voluntarily enlisted, are necessarily
"liberal" in relation to domestic policy because the idea is to destroy all Western and Christian norms and values by means of
cultural marxist "critical theory." And it's working very well. The mass media and the educational system have hopelessly corrupted
American and European minds with this profoundly subversive "intellectual" garbage.
And when it comes to foreign policy, of course the Neocons are globalists, like the international bankers whom they serve.
Israel first, because they are not there to defend their country's interests, but to defend Israel's, in accordance with the permanent
goal of Eretz Ysrael and world hegemony in accordance with the ultimate goal of Jewish supremacy via the money power, and
in preparation for their "messiah". It's all disguised as for the sake of American greatness and "our values."
The Neocons are nothing less than a parasitical foreign body which has us thinking in accordance with its interests; in
fact they are mortal enemies, nothing less. The Western goyim–as well as innocent Jews here and in Israel itself–will be
cheerfully sacrificed by the Zionists, who serve darker forces and interests than those of their people. Western humanity has
been rendered helpless because they are intellectually helpless and because in consequence they have been dispossessed of deep
faith and corresponding real virtues. This was noted years ago by Solzhenitsyn, among others. Ideas rule human beings for good
or ill, since we are thinking beings. But when the ideas that determine us are profoundly wrong and when intellectual chaos and
unbridled individualism reign, nothing real can be accomplished. However, in due time vincit omnia veritas –the Real has
the last word. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
North Korea's survival strategy is "If you invade us, we will blow up South Korea and maybe even Tokyo." Ruled by a vile regime
but with rational concern for survival, even if it has no moral right to survive. But then, what is the other option? South Korea
is a puppet state of US globalist empire. If NK was ruled by wiser people, its case would be made more intelligently. It would
tell the world community that it needs for defense given US record in the Middle East and North Africa. But it's ruled by some
egotistical brat-boy whose idea of culture is Dennis Rodman and Rap trash-talking.
As different as NK and Jewish Power, they have one thing in common: WGYG or We Go, You Go. The idea is that if they are destroyed,
they will take others with them.
Jewish Power pulled this off in 2008. When Lehman Brothers wasn't bailed out by the government, Wall Street pushed a 'too big
to fail' scheme and threatened Total Collapse of the Economy UNLESS it was showered with super-generous bailouts that would eventually
come to enrich the banks during a severe recession for most Americans. Bush couldn't do anything about it except go along. Obama
bailed out Wall Street. And McCain would have done the same had he won. Jewish Wall Street power held a gun to the head of
the entire US economy and said 'Give us money, OR we will take ALL OF YOU down with us.'
The system is rigged so that a major collapse of Jewish Power will trigger total collapse of the entire system. It's been wired
that way. The whole tower will collapse. So, if anyone tries to cut the wire of Jewish Power, kaboom, the whole thing blows up,
and everyone dies. Gentiles must carry Jewish Power like a crate of nitroglycerin. One false step and Kaboom.
"Tom [Cotton] is completely owned by the Israeli lobby."
" . . . [Nikki] Haley is stupid. And ambitious. And is also owned by the Israeli lobby . . .".
My knowledge of foreign policy is headline-quality only. My knowledge of some domestic policy is pretty good. I've been
on the public stump in my area. The reality of American policy, as I've seen it, is that it's bought and paid for. There is no
"public interest", no "national interest". I'm not even sure there's an America, in the sense of a people joined by some common
values. Sometimes I think of America as an agglomeration of rackets. You're goddamned right I don't like thinking this way.
There are only insider players who bankroll and blackmail their way into getting the decisions they want. I wish I could say
something high-minded, but I can't.
India and Pakistan have nukes. How would they respond to an Israeli Sampson Option?
How about China? An Izzie attack on European capitals could destroy a lot of Chinese investment. China has sufficient nuclear
capability to detach Israel from the Mediterranean littoral and create an irradiated submerged island.
Does van Crevald think Putin will sit on his hands and wait a thousand years for the dust to clear?
van Crevald says Israel can hit Rome. That's zionism's wet dream, to completely obliterate Rome.
How many Jews live a parasitical life in Rome and other European capitals?
Can Izzies reach USA? Didn't think so. What do they think would happen to hundreds of Jewish institutions, and Jewish people,
in USA if Israel destroys Europe -- again?
People need to let go of the idea that Dump is anything but a conman and a weak one at that
The office of President holds a lot of authority that Dump has not been able [or willing] to wield that speaks to his own weakness
as a leader
It's time to admit that he is not the messiah that many Lunchpail Joes wanted to believe
As to the specifics of this article yes I agree with Mr. Giraldi that the neocons are back in the driver's seat if they ever
left in the first place
Exhibit One is Jared Kushner the Clown Prince of the Shite House. This is the guy who has inflicted most of the damage on Dump
starting with his advice to dump Flynn. Dump was under zero pressure to do any such thing the
neocon Pence is the one who demanded Flynn's head. Dump could have pushed back there was nothing wrong with Flynn the
incoming National Security Adviser speaking to the Russians or anyone else and what he spoke of with the Russians was in lobbying
THEM in the US interest not the other way round
Dump's second big mistake was firing Comey again on the advice of Kushner. Which got the Mueller ball rolling. Some have
rightly drawn the
parallels of Kushner whispering in Dump's ear to the same role of Kissinger vis a vis Nixon's downfall
Then Kushner appeared to connive with his buddy KSA Clown Prince MBS to engineer the Hariri fiasco [which Tillerson managed
to "deftly undo..."]
' Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was accompanying the president during his Asia tour at the time of the Saudi-engineered
initiative, was "completely blindsided" by the move, as several senior Middle East diplomats confirmed to TAC.
While Tillerson would later be accused of being "totally disengaged" from the crisis, several former and current U.S. diplomats
have told us that just precisely the opposite was the case '
' The unlikely hero in all of this might well be Rex Tillerson, who quietly engineered a U.S. policy at odds with the
views of Donald Trump -- and his son-in-law. The exact details of how Tillerson pulled this off remain unknown ("I think
Tillerson just told Trump what he was going to do," the senior diplomat with whom we spoke speculates, "and then just did it.")
'
So that's the backstory right there about why the neocons are agitating for Tillerson's ouster. I have to strongly disagree
with Mr. Giraldi's characterization of Tillerson as
' a somewhat bumbling businessman adept at dealing in energy futures contracts who has been struggling with reducing State's
enormously bloated payroll '
That is a useless statement on many levels Tillerson deftly managed what is arguably America's most important corporation
in what is surely the most strategic and geopolitical global industry energy
The global oil trade is 14 trillion dollars even at today's prices and the petrodollar is the underpinning of the entire
US system a free ride for printing free money because every nation has to buy US dollars to buy or sell oil. In 1971
' I was informed at a White House meeting that U.S. diplomats had let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries know that they
could charge as much as they wanted for their oil, but that the United States would treat it as an act of war not to keep
their oil proceeds in U.S. dollar assets '
This whole saga surrounding Dump's readiness to tie the can to Tillerson is proof positive if any more were needed that conman
Dump has been a fake from the beginning
If the neocons are ascendant and back in the driver's seat it is no one's fault but the Dumpster
He has cast his lot with Kushner who appears to be the neocons' Trojan Horse
There can be no more sympathy or understanding anymore for Dump
If we recall his campaign rhetoric of 'draining the swamp' and rebuilding America's failing infrastructure improving relations
with Russia all good things
we must also recall that he has been vehemently anti-Iran from the get-go
One has to ask why ?
Iran is a completely Israeli-owned issue Iran has nothing to do with the interests of the US other than to benefit leading
US industries like aircraft manufacturing which were immediately rewarded with a $100 billion order of Boeing aircraft in the
aftermath of the Obama nuclear deal
That vehement anti-Iran attitude even on the campaign trail should have been a red flag to everyone
Even Hellary would have been better in that regard and as for the Russia 'issue' what could Hellary or the US to do Russia
anyway ?
Militarily nothing even in Syria the US military would certainly not go for an open war against Russia neither would the regional
players hosting US bases which would need to be on board for such an adventure
same goes for the breakaway region of eastern Ukraine
Germany and France are anyway moving closer to Russia, which has de facto established itself as an energy distribution superpower
for the continent and for China
The big picture is that the petrodollar and the free ride for US prosperity is living on borrowed time China is the world's
biggest energy importer and is not going to support the petrodollar forever
Already an alternative financial architecture is being built and the BRICS countries now outpace the combined GDP of the G7
so the writing is on the wall
Dump has shown himself to be a conman first and an incredibly weak president he deserves no sympathy or support
The neocons are of course insane they are picking fights with Iran, Venezuela and others who are going to be the first
to ditch the petrodollar and accelerate the tipping point to the new global financial order that is going to impoverish the US
overnight
The same neocons are also the ones who are undermining US demographics because their Ponzi scheme economy is based on perpetual
growth which, in turn, requires perpetual population growth which means more immigration. Also the immigration keeps the wages
low which is just extra gravy for the Plutocracy
The US will be a white-minority country by 2050 much of the Southwest already is
None of that is going to change when the party is over and the Titanic sinks the handful of necons and Plutocrats will have
their lifeboats ready
"... 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?
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken
together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with
its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente)
with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake
narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and
is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or
opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of
solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and
status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in
the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding
in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the
level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now
are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of
'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election
has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist
Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings
from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black
Americans by law enforcement."
In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who
had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling,
appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber.
Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.
"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We
all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations
and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing
on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will
end."
The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media
off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress
rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne
Feinstein and
Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal
lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of
media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.
Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian
efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine
the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms.
But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to
Facebook's data
, 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to
anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through
or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed
to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not
exactly a viral smash.
Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total
content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts
targeted "animal
lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed "
Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According
to its " deliberately
broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part,
documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked
ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have
shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad
spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.
However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping
82 percent of Democrats
that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned
comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the
attacks of 9/11
. And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.
As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled
experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that
flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities.
Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.
So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?
Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship
A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy
Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian
bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his
employers at FPRI
hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential
election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."
Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits,
including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint
Terror Task Force.
Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs
as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship
from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.
Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to
popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.
Before Congress, a String of Deceptions
Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee.
Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were
novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate,
helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.
In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence
of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, "
The Good and The Bad
of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its
human rights abuses , sectarianism and
off-and-on alliances
with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian
government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as
"an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."
Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later,
urging the
U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms,
should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression,"
he wrote. In another paper, Watts
asked
, "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia
and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought
to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.
The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their
sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda,
the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was
named by Spanish
investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected
a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.
Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article
were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and
a look at his single tweet promoting the
article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime
change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information
warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political
divisions."
Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in
American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active
measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast
transcript of his testimony) was a
single link
to an RT article that factually documented
a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets,
from the
Houston
Chronicle to the
Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual
events.
Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his
opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S.
airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence
operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In
reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.
In the articles
cited
by Watts during his testimony, neither
RT nor
Sputnik made
any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced
their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually
every major Turkish news organization (
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). What's more,
the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase
from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed
the severity of the event,
citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover."
This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.
Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including
Politico . Democratic
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
echoed Watts'
false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim
Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent,
reproduced
Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization
or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.
Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.
Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court
During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures"
to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably
why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.
Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him
to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.
The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly
from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi.
The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email
by Blumenthal.
The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service
funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran
scrubbed
his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar,
a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.
In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation.
With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the
nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national
platform to
highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several
months fighting to correct the record.
When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he
offered
Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald
had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting
Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran
once again as a foreign agent.
When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression.
He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for
defamation and libel.
Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's
articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts
made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.
The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a
cable news star, with
invites
from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received
coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become
the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.
FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists
Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name
recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been
described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War
days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."
Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a
similar characterization
of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign
policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members
of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led
the charge."
FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding
from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners
to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian
fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization
described by journalists
Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination
of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, "
The Geography of Intellect
," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising."
Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational
thought."
While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause
mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda.
By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker
Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to
drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."
Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve
in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy.
Today, he is remembered fondly
on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic
legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.
The Paranoid Style
This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling.
Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been
mysteriously scrubbed
from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments
examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable
claims about Russian influence.
While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he
believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said,
claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."
"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from
their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or
offer any examples.
"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign
and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."
It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no
details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues.
He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."
According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is
the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success
with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely
unexamined.
Domestic Agent of Influence
"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break
one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars
doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."
By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners
in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."
Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James
Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have
triggered congressional hearings.
Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation,
this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress
and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock
us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.
In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and
consular raids to arbitrary
crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.
It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had
approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called
the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media
outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and
ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.
In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes
overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating
Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.
As 2017 comes to a close, the warring parties in Syria are moving towards reconciliation --
but the U.S. is not among them.
The Islamic State is all but defeated, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies are now
closing in on the few remaining pockets occupied by other extremists, and Iranians, Russians,
and Turks are mapping out the peace to come.
Then there's America. Donald Trump may have hinted at changes up his sleeve, but he's
treading the same tired path as his predecessor on Syria.
Determined to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as a means to weaken Iran and
re-establish U.S. regional hegemony, Barack Obama's White House placed its bets on two pathways
to this goal: 1) a military strategy to wrest control over Syria from the regime, and 2) a
UN-sponsored and U.S.-backed mediation in Geneva to transition Assad out.
Washington lost its military gamble when the Russian air force entered the battle in
September 2015, providing both game-changing air cover and international clout to Assad's
efforts.
So the U.S. turned its hand to resuscitating a limp Geneva peace process that might have
delivered a Syrian political settlement sans Assad.
Instead, two years on, the tables have turned in this sphere, too. Today, it is the
Iranians, Turks, and Russians leading reconciliation efforts in Syria through a process
established in Astana and continued last week in Sochi -- not Geneva. The three states have
transformed the ground war by isolating key extremists, carving out ceasefire zones, and
negotiating deals to keep the peace.
To nobody's surprise, the Americans are neither part of this new initiative, nor have they
offered any constructive counters. Meanwhile, the UN's Geneva framework, after eight rounds of
talks, has not once been able to bring the two Syrian sides face-to-face at the Big
Table.
To illustrate, UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, who leads these talks, now
says things like this with a straight face: "We have started very close proximity parallel
meetings. In fact, I have been shuttling between two rooms at a distance of five meters from
each other."
In short, the U.S.'s Syrian efforts have hit a brick wall, while new regional and
international power brokers have stepped in to pick up the slack.
Geneva: A process designed to fail
Just one week ago, with great media fanfare, we were promised a fresh start and new twists
in Syria. For the first time since the Geneva I conference launched in June 2012, we were told
the opposition was "unified" and there were no "pre-conditions" that might hold up talks.
Those expectations were shattered almost immediately when various Syrian opposition members
went off-message and insisted that
"Assad must go"
at some point during a future transition period. Unified they were not. And the Syrian
government didn't hide their disgust. They arrived a day late and scurried back to Damascus
just as quickly.
And here is why Geneva negotiations will never, ever get off the ground.
Firstly, the "Syrian opposition" do not actually
represent "the Syrian people." Most of these individuals have been selected by foreign
governments -- until recently, mainly by U.S. allies in Riyadh, Doha, Ankara -- to do their
bidding in Geneva, and have been "elected" by no more than a few dozen other Syrians in foreign
capitals.
UN envoy de Mistura didn't bother to hide that fact last week when he
thanked the Saudis for facilitating "the establishment of a unified opposition
delegation."
The UN-led process -- like the U.S. administration -- has created conditions that exclude
Syria's more independent and nationalistic domestic opposition from negotiations. These are
people who have largely rejected foreign intervention and the militarization of the conflict,
rail against Western-imposed sanctions, and signal actual readiness to talk to Assad's
government about the reforms they desire.
The Russians and Iranians have kept open channels to these individuals and groups, and many
of them have beaten a path to Moscow over the years to strike compromises and seek solutions. A
few even made the cut, for the first time, at this eighth round of Geneva talks.
Secondly, the Syrian opposition have lost the war -- victors decide the peace, not the
vanquished. The team sitting in Geneva seems oblivious to the fact that the Syrian government
and its allies have now gained an almost-irreversible military advantage on the battlefield.
These are not two parties on equal footing -- and no great-power mentors in the world can
change that fact.
Assad's government has said on numerous occasions that it is willing to sit with any Syrian
who comes without preconditions and negotiates in good faith. Years of "reconciliations" on the
ground between the government, local citizens, NGOs, friendly foreign state-guarantors, and
rebel fighters lend a proven track record to those claims. This is the format for future
negotiations -- it is a tested, homegrown Syrian solution, not one
made-in-America-or-Riyadh.
"Ceasefires" struck in Astana
The breakthrough came in late 2016. Turkey, the main adversary state through which weapons
and jihadists flowed into Syria, made a U-turn on its Syria strategy, driven by U.S. military
support for Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, which Ankara views as a national security
threat. Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan began a tactical engagement with Russia and
Iran, and pulled Qatar and its respective Syrian rebel allies along with him. These moves
tipped the balance on the battlefield, allowing the SAA and its allies to liberate Aleppo (a
turning point in the war) and launch their ultimately successful campaign against ISIS.
Shortly afterward, delegations consisting of the Syrian government and a dozen opposition
rebel factions convened in Astana, Kazakhstan, for indirect talks sponsored by Turkey, Iran,
and Russia.
By early May, the three countries had signed a memorandum to establish four
"de-escalation zones" in rebel-occupied areas in Syria. The zones cover key hotspots in
northern Homs, southern Syria, eastern Ghouta, and Idlib province, and are renewable at
six-month intervals. While some armed groups have rejected the concept, the de-escalation zones
have largely succeeded at halting hostilities and, importantly, have helped create separation
between extremists and rebels willing to participate in ceasefires.
Furthermore, for the more than two million people believed to reside in these zones, the
Astana process also guarantees humanitarian and medical access, the return of displaced persons
to their towns and homes, the reconstruction of vital infrastructure, and other benefits.
In July, the U.S. and Jordan joined Russia to broker the details of the southern Syrian
de-escalation zone, with a joint command established in Jordan. And in September, Iran, Russia,
and Turkey agreed to implement the fourth and final de-escalation zone in Idlib, a stronghold
of the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra terrorist group.
In short, within eight months, four key areas of Syria demilitarized under the watch of
three countries: Turkey, a major supporter of Syrian opposition militants, and Iran and Russia,
both close allies of the Syrian government.
A "political solution" in Sochi next?
Ceasefires are, incidentally, one of the two primary objectives of the Geneva
process. They are the military part of a Syrian solution.
The other objective is the political settlement of the Syrian conflict, envisioned by
Geneva's architects as the establishment of a transitional government that would generate a
revised constitution, prepare elections, and the like.
Last week, on the eve of Geneva-8, the three Astana sponsors convened in Sochi after an
unexpected meeting there between Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President
Vladimir Putin that appeared to signal an official Syrian approval for what came next.
In a joint statement ,
the presidents of Iran, Russia, and Turkey called for a "Syrian National Dialogue Congress" to
be held in Sochi in the near future, consisting of the Syrian government and "the opposition
that are committed to the sovereignty, independence, unity, territorial integrity and
non-fractional character of the Syrian state."
While they were careful to point out that the initiative is intended to "complement" Geneva,
not act as an "alternative," the statement also made clear that "Iran, Russia and Turkey will
consult and agree on participants of the Congress."
Will this be another rubber-stamped opposition directed by foreign mentors? An informed
source says no, "any Syrian who does not exclude him or herself can participate."
It is highly likely that hardliners and extremists will exclude themselves from the Sochi
talks -- they have consistently rejected direct interactions with the Syrian government and
will never accept a future with Assad at the helm. Instead, Sochi is likely to draw interest
from a larger cross-section of Syrian society closer to the views of Syria's traditional domestic
opposition , who were never given a chance in Geneva.
In the end, it is altogether conceivable that a final Syrian political solution will look
very similar to the reforms Assad offered up in
2011 and 2012. His proposals were never given the time or space to mature and were, at the
time, rejected outright by foreign governments and their Syrian allies.
But most importantly, if Sochi can finish what Geneva could never start, we will be thrust
into a genuine post-American era where alternative regional actors will be able to broker
globally significant peace deals.
The resolution of a conflict of this magnitude largely outside the umbrella of a UN- or
U.S.-led framework breaks with the assumption that major geopolitical solutions need be
made-in-America.
The most common refrain in a disgruntled Middle East today is that "Americans don't solve
conflicts, they manage them."
Trump this week forever dispelled the notion that America is an honest mediator in Middle
East peace efforts when he unilaterally recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It is not
surprising that the
Saudis , Jordanians
QatarisSudaneseEgyptians,
and others are now beating a path to Moscow for some fresh thinking.
Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Mideast geopolitics based in Beirut.12 Responses to Mideast Peacemaking is No Longer Made-in-America
Yeah, especially after Trump's pointless, ridiculous Jerusalem move, more negotiations and
multilateral deals will be struck without US involvement. Our hyper-militarized approach to
diplomacy, and a Middle East obsessed foreign policy dictated by Israel, has shocked and
disgusted the world, including our actual treaty allies, who are now moving on without us.
"But most importantly, if Sochi can finish what Geneva could never start, we will be
thrust into a genuine post-American era where alternative regional actors will be able to
broker globally significant peace deals."
I pray that you're right. America must disentangle itself from the legacy of failure,
futility, and colossal expense of the "peace process". Let others do it. It sounds like the
Turks, Russians, Qataris, and Iranians have had some success at this. Fine. Let them take
over Israel / Palestine. And let the US get the hell out and come home to do some of the
"America First" stuff that Trump promised. Like withdrawing our troops from the Middle East
and defending our own borders with them instead.
Well, Kim-il-Trump has eliminated the US as a participant in any settlement. Putin and
Erdogan will get whatever they want while the US stands on the sidelines, a diminishing
power. Maybe Jared can get his family permission to build a few more settlements in the
occupied territories, sited on a Palestinian olive grove.
All the while, Xi Jinping grows stronger as he guides China to be the last remaining
superpower.
Very interesting article. Thank you. Having worked in the Middle East the U.S. is regarded as
nothing more than a pawn of Israel. Sad but true. This by people who often have relatives and
friends living well in the U.S. who understand that the shackles on U.S. foreign policy are
tight and well-controlled from Tel Aviv and now Jerusalem. These people cede the goodwill of
the American people and love us for it, but know the reality of decision-making is made by
neocons with dubious loyalties to the U.S. Trump's Jerusalem decision will put QED to these
assumptions as to who is the boss. Many of us will have lived our mortal span under this most
frustrating and counter-productive phenomenon. Will future generations throw off this heavy
and unbearable yolk? It will take courage.
After invading Iraq twice, once at the behest of the House of Saud, the second time for no
reason at all, why would anyone in the Mideast listen to us about peace?
People cut us a lot of slack because they know we're hamstrung by the Israel Lobby buying,
threatening, or blackmailing our politicians. But after a while it's like the Germans and
Nazism: there's the question "why didn't you do anything? It's your country. How could you
let this happen?"
Now that Trump has starkly, publicly dramatized the problem by putting America at further
risk of terror attacks in order to please Israel and Israel's American agents, it becomes
harder for others to believe that Americans don't really know what's going on. And it becomes
likelier we'll be held responsible, likelier that the rest of the world will distance itself
from us, likelier that Americans will be attacked and killed.
One thing's for sure. You don't make America great again by doing what Obama called
"stupid s***" for Israel.
In fact, our relationship with the modern state of Israel has been a steadily worsening
burden and curse. Which suggests (to this Christian American) that the modern state that
calls itself "Israel" is not the Israel that the Bible says we should bless. He is punishing
us, His people, Americans, and our land, America, with war and staggering costs for
worshiping the false idol of "Israel".
The weakness in all this is that Putin has bogged himself down irreversibly in Syria, just as
the Soviets did in Afghanistan and for exactly the same reason. Putin has made himself
Assad's protector and must now prop him up for all time and against all comers. The US can
lower the boom on him at any time by simply re-launching the war, for example, as a terrorist
campaign which can penetrate all the way up to the Mediterranean coast and inflict casualties
directly on the Russians.
Trump this week forever dispelled the notion that America is an honest mediator in Middle
East peace efforts when he unilaterally recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It is not
surprising that the Saudis, Jordanians, Qataris, Sudanese, Egyptians, and others are now
beating a path to Moscow for some fresh thinking.
This is excellent news. One reason why the US felt free to attack country after country at
the behest of its Israeli and Saudi masters is that after the collapse of the USSR, there
were no countries left to challenge its actions. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts
absolutely.
If Russia and China can provide a counterweight to US power, the likelihood of the US
behaving like a rogue nation goes down drastically, and that will be good for everyone, the
US included.
While some reasonable long term level of peace in Syria would be a welcome outcome of these
negotiations, it will be interesting to see how far Assad is willing to go in ceding power
away from himself and the minority Alawites who have historically held many of the senior
positions in the Syrian government and military if this is what is required to get a peace
agreement. Whatever is agreed it seems likely the Syrian people will have to accept the
presence of the Russian military for years to come.
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 ˝-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 naďve 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 ˝-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.
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.
"... Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia. ..."
"... The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' ..."
"... At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity. ..."
"... The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954 coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe to absorb the refugees. ..."
"... The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain. ..."
"... The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization? ..."
"... Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable. ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21 st century. ..."
"... wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company "In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia. D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received Ł20,000 (Ł2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore. ..."
"... The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence? ..."
"... Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity. ..."
"... US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.: ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21st century. ..."
"... It's important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception, and the anti-federalists knew it. ..."
"... "After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler. ..."
"... But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs. ..."
"... The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI. ..."
"... Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either. ..."
"... This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve ..."
"... In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies, which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists. ..."
"... The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on, as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out. ..."
"... " Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself." ..."
In theory, the global financial system is supposed to help every country gain. Mainstream teaching of international finance, trade
and "foreign aid" (defined simply as any government credit) depicts an almost utopian system uplifting all countries, not stripping
their assets and imposing austerity. The reality since World War I is that the United States has taken the lead in shaping the international
financial system to promote gains for its own bankers, farm exporters, its oil and gas sector, and buyers of foreign resources –
and most of all, to collect on debts owed to it.
Each time this global system has broken down over the past century, the major destabilizing force has been American over-reach
and the drive by its bankers and bondholders for short-term gains. The dollar-centered financial system is leaving more industrial
as well as Third World countries debt-strapped. Its three institutional pillars – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank
and World Trade Organization – have imposed monetary, fiscal and financial dependency, most recently by the post-Soviet Baltics,
Greece and the rest of southern Europe. The resulting strains are now reaching the point where they are breaking apart the arrangements
put in place after World War II.
The most destructive fiction of international finance is that all debts can be paid, and indeed should be paid, even when
this tears economies apart by forcing them into austerity – to save bondholders, not labor and industry. Yet European countries,
and especially Germany, have shied from pressing for a more balanced global economy that would foster growth for all countries and
avoid the current economic slowdown and debt deflation.
Imposing austerity on Germany after World War I
After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs
among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great
War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts. Headed by John Maynard Keynes, British diplomats sought
to clean their hands of responsibility for the consequences by promising that all the money they received from Germany would simply
be forwarded to the U.S. Treasury.
The sums were so unpayably high that Germany was driven into austerity and collapse. The nation suffered hyperinflation as the
Reichsbank printed marks to throw onto the foreign exchange also were pushed into financial collapse. The debt deflation was much
like that of Third World debtors a generation ago, and today's southern European PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain).
In a pretense that the reparations and Inter-Ally debt tangle could be made solvent, a triangular flow of payments was facilitated
by a convoluted U.S. easy-money policy. American investors sought high returns by buying German local bonds; German municipalities
turned over the dollars they received to the Reichsbank for domestic currency; and the Reichsbank used this foreign exchange to pay
reparations to Britain and other Allies, enabling these countries to pay the United States what it demanded.
But solutions based on attempts to keep debts of such magnitude in place by lending debtors the money to pay can only be temporary.
The U.S. Federal Reserve sustained this triangular flow by holding down U.S. interest rates. This made it attractive for American
investors to buy German municipal bonds and other high-yielding debts. It also deterred Wall Street from drawing funds away from
Britain, which would have driven its economy deeper into austerity after the General Strike of 1926. But domestically, low U.S. interest
rates and easy credit spurred a real estate bubble, followed by a stock market bubble that burst in 1929. The triangular flow of
payments broke down in 1931, leaving a legacy of debt deflation burdening the U.S. and European economies. The Great Depression lasted
until outbreak of World War II in 1939.
Planning for the postwar period took shape as the war neared its end. U.S. diplomats had learned an important lesson. This time
there would be no arms debts or reparations. The global financial system would be stabilized – on the basis of gold, and on creditor-oriented
rules. By the end of the 1940s the United States held some 75 percent of the world's monetary gold stock. That established the U.S.
dollar as the world's reserve currency, freely convertible into gold at the 1933 parity of $35 an ounce.
It also implied that once again, as in the 1920s, European balance-of-payments deficits would have to be financed mainly by the
United States. Recycling of official government credit was to be filtered via the IMF and World Bank, in which U.S. diplomats alone
had veto power to reject policies they found not to be in their national interest. International financial "stability" thus became
a global control mechanism – to maintain creditor-oriented rules centered in the United States.
To obtain gold or dollars as backing for their own domestic monetary systems, other countries had to follow the trade and investment
rules laid down by the United States. These rules called for relinquishing control over capital movements or restrictions on foreign
takeovers of natural resources and the public domain as well as local industry and banking systems.
By 1950 the dollar-based global economic system had become increasingly untenable. Gold continued flowing to the United States,
strengthening the dollar – until the Korean War reversed matters. From 1951 through 1971 the United States ran a deepening balance-of-payments
deficit, which stemmed entirely from overseas military spending. (Private-sector trade and investment was steadily in balance.)
U.S. Treasury debt replaces the gold exchange standard
The foreign military spending that helped return American gold to Europe became a flood as the Vietnam War spread across Asia
after 1962. The Treasury kept the dollar's exchange rate stable by selling gold via the London Gold Pool at $35 an ounce. Finally,
in August 1971, President Nixon stopped the drain by closing the Gold Pool and halting gold convertibility of the dollar.
There was no plan for what would happen next. Most observers viewed cutting the dollar's link to gold as a defeat for the United
States. It certainly ended the postwar financial order as designed in 1944. But what happened next was just the reverse of a defeat.
No longer able to buy gold after 1971 (without inciting strong U.S. disapproval), central banks found only one asset in which to
hold their balance-of-payments surpluses: U.S. Treasury debt. These securities no longer were "as good as gold." The United States
issued them at will to finance soaring domestic budget deficits.
By shifting from gold to the dollars thrown off by the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, the foundation of global monetary reserves
came to be dominated by the U.S. military spending that continued to flood foreign central banks with surplus dollars. America's
balance-of-payments deficit thus supplied the dollars that financed its domestic budget deficits and bank credit creation – via foreign
central banks recycling U.S. foreign spending back to the U.S. Treasury.
In effect, foreign countries have been taxed without representation over how their loans to the U.S. Government are employed.
European central banks were not yet prepared to create their own sovereign wealth funds to invest their dollar inflows in foreign
stocks or direct ownership of businesses. They simply used their trade and payments surpluses to finance the U.S. budget deficit.
This enabled the Treasury to cut domestic tax rates, above all on the highest income brackets.
U.S. monetary imperialism confronted European and Asian central banks with a dilemma that remains today: If they do not turn around
and buy dollar assets, their currencies will rise against the dollar. Buying U.S. Treasury securities is the only practical way to
stabilize their exchange rates – and in so doing, to prevent their exports from rising in dollar terms and being priced out of dollar-area
markets.
The system may have developed without foresight, but quickly became deliberate. My book Super Imperialism sold best in
the Washington DC area, and I was given a large contract through the Hudson Institute to explain to the Defense Department exactly
how this extractive financial system worked. I was brought to the White House to explain it, and U.S. geostrategists used my book
as a how-to-do-it manual (not my original intention).
Attention soon focused on the oil-exporting countries. After the U.S. quadrupled its grain export prices shortly after the 1971
gold suspension, the oil-exporting countries quadrupled their oil prices. I was informed at a White House meeting that U.S. diplomats
had let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries know that they could charge as much as they wanted for their oil, but that the United
States would treat it as an act of war not to keep their oil proceeds in U.S. dollar assets.
This was the point at which the international financial system became explicitly extractive. But it took until 2009, for the first
attempt to withdraw from this system to occur. A conference was convened at Yekaterinburg, Russia, by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO). The alliance comprised Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan and Uzbekistan, with observer status for Iran, India,
Pakistan and Mongolia. U.S. officials asked to attend as observers, but their request was rejected.
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking to break free from America's financial free
ride.
The IMF changes its rules to isolate Russia and China
Aiming to isolate Russia and China, the Obama Administration's confrontational diplomacy has drawn the Bretton Woods institutions
more tightly under US/NATO control. In so doing, it is disrupting the linkages put in place after World War II.
The U.S. plan was to hurt Russia's economy so much that it would be ripe for regime change ("color revolution"). But the effect
was to drive it eastward, away from Western Europe to consolidate its long-term relations with China and Central Asia. Pressing Europe
to shift its oil and gas purchases to U.S. allies, U.S. sanctions have disrupted German and other European trade and investment with
Russia and China. It also has meant lost opportunities for European farmers, other exporters and investors – and a flood of refugees
from failed post-Soviet states drawn into the NATO orbit, most recently Ukraine.
To U.S. strategists, what made changing IMF rules urgent was Ukraine's $3 billion debt falling due to Russia's National Wealth
Fund in December 2015. The IMF had long withheld credit to countries refusing to pay other governments. This policy aimed primarily
at protecting the financial claims of the U.S. Government, which usually played a lead role in consortia with other governments and
U.S. banks. But under American pressure the IMF changed its rules in January 2015. Henceforth, it announced, it would indeed be willing
to provide credit to countries in arrears other governments – implicitly headed by China (which U.S. geostrategists consider to be
their main long-term adversary), Russia and others that U.S. financial warriors might want to isolate in order to force neoliberal
privatization policies. [1] I provide the full
background in "The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked
Capitalism , Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
Article I of the IMF's 1944-45 founding charter
prohibits it from lending to a member engaged in civil war or at war with another member state, or for military purposes generally.
An obvious reason for this rule is that such a country is unlikely to earn the foreign exchange to pay its debt. Bombing Ukraine's
own Donbass region in the East after its February 2014 coup d'état destroyed its export industry, mainly to Russia.
Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force adherence to the Minsk peace agreements, but U.S. diplomacy rejected that
opportunity. When IMF head Christine Lagarde made a new loan to Ukraine in spring 2015, she merely expressed a verbal hope for peace.
Ukrainian President Porochenko announced the next day that he would step up his civil war against the Russian-speaking population
in eastern Ukraine. One and a half-billion dollars of the IMF loan were given to banker Ihor Kolomoiski and disappeared offshore,
while the oligarch used his domestic money to finance an anti-Donbass army. A million refugees were driven east into Russia; others
fled west via Poland as the economy and Ukraine's currency plunged.
The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (1) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the
loan (the "No More Argentinas" rule, adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (2) Not to lend to a country
that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (3)
Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back
the loan. Finally (4), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF's austerity "conditionalities." Ukraine did agree to override
democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.
U.S. neoliberalism promotes privatization carve-ups of debtor countries
Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer
trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all
others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia.
At stake is much more than just which nations will get the contracting and banking business. At issue is whether the philosophy
of development will follow the classical path based on public infrastructure investment, or whether public sectors will be privatized
and planning turned over to rent-seeking corporations.
What made the United States and Germany the leading industrial nations of the 20 th century – and more recently, China
– has been public investment in economic infrastructure. The aim was to lower the price of living and doing business by providing
basic services on a subsidized basis or freely. By contrast, U.S. privatizers have brought debt leverage to bear on Third World countries,
post-Soviet economies and most recently on southern Europe to force selloffs. Current plans to cap neoliberal policy with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) go so far
as to disable government planning power to the financial and corporate sector.
American strategists evidently hoped that the threat of isolating Russia, China and other countries would bring them to heel if
they tried to denominate trade and investment in their own national currencies. Their choice would be either to suffer sanctions
like those imposed on Cuba and Iran, or to avoid exclusion by acquiescing in the dollarized financial and trade system and its drives
to financialize their economies under U.S. control.
The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds
of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve
out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments
pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might
reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and
other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals.
These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over
legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' "
This policy threat is splitting the world into pro-U.S. satellites and economies maintaining public infrastructure investment
and what used to be viewed as progressive capitalism. U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism supporting its own financial and corporate interests
has driven Russia, China and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization into an alliance to protect their economic self-sufficiency
rather than becoming dependent on dollarized credit enmeshing them in foreign-currency debt.
At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow
the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier
to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term
gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity.
The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has
dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954
coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was
highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President
Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible
nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe
to absorb the refugees.
Germany's choice
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve. The industrial takeoff of Germany and other European nations involved
a long fight to free markets from the land rents and financial charges siphoned off by their landed aristocracies and bankers. That
was the essence of classical 19 th -century political economy and 20 th -century social democracy. Most economists
a century ago expected industrial capitalism to produce an economy of abundance, and democratic reforms to endorse public infrastructure
investment and regulation to hold down the cost of living and doing business. But U.S. economic diplomacy now threatens to radically
reverse this economic ideology by aiming to dismantle public regulatory power and impose a radical privatization agenda under the
TTIP and TAFTA.
Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by becoming
more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North American industrial
economies. Instead, the world is polarizing, not converging. The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity
since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain.
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to
force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public
sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization?
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced
was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private
debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity
of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies
apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic
destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic
leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy
and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for
the remainder of the 21 st century.
Endnotes
[1] I provide the full background in
"The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked Capitalism
, Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
"Austerity" is such a misused word these days. What the Allies did to Germany after Versailles was austerity, and everyone paid
dearly for it.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
The Austerity everyone complains about in the developed world these days is a joke, hardly austerity, for it has never meant
more than doing a little less deficit-spending than in prior periods, e.g. UK Labour whining about "Austerity" is a joke, as the
UK debt has done nothing but grow, which in terms understandable to simple folk like me means they are spending more than they
can afford to carry.
" The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions "
In the whole article not a word about the euro, also an instrument of imperialism, that mainly benefits Germany, the country
that has to maintain a high level of exports, in order to feed the Germans, and import raw materials for Germany's industries.
Isolating China and Russia, with the other BRICS countries, S Africa, Brazil, India, dangerous game.
This effort forced China and Russia to close cooperation, the economic expression of this is the Peking Petersburg railway, with
a hub in Khazakstan, where the containers are lifted from the Chinese to the Russian system, the width differs.
Four days for the trip.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Let us hope that history does not repeat itself in the nuclear era.
Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., 'Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism', 1923, 1924, New York
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking t o break free from America's
financial free ride .
Nah, the NY banksters wouldn't dream of doing such a thing; would they?
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
What I said, and beautifully put, the whole article.
World War I may well have been an important way-point, but the miserable mercantile modus operandi was well established
long before.
An interesting A/B case:
a) wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company
"In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of
Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia.
D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange
the Shah received Ł20,000 (Ł2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future
profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore.
b) The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note
that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence?
Then see what happened when the erstwhile APOC was nationalized; the US/UK perpetrated a coup against the democratically elected
Mossadegh, eventual blow-back resulting in the 1979 revolution, basically taking Iran out of 'the West.'
Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they
actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those
traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out
the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity.
We the people are powerless passengers, and to add insult to injury, the taxpayer-funded AusBC lies to us continually. Ho,
hum; just like the mainly US/Z MSM and the BBC do – all corrupt and venal. Bah!
Now, cue the trolls: "But Russia/China are worse!"
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions.
US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice
our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.:
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath.
Excellent.:
The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival
on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies
and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
This is a gem of a summary.:
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's
democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following
U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy,
between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation,
and probably for the remainder of the 21st century.
Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. It's
important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception,
and the anti-federalists knew it.
Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.
You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies [ ed comment: the money grubbers ]
Patrick Henry June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the
Virginia Convention of 1788
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.
- Albert Jay Nock [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson, published in 1926]
"After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support
costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered
the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street
super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler.
But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their
WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money
and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs
assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs.
To Michael Hudson,
Great article. Evidence based, factually argued, enjoyably readable.
Replacements for the dollar dominated financial system are well into development. Digital dollars, credit cards, paypal, stock
and currency exchange online platforms, and perhaps most intriguing The exponential rise of Bitcoin and similar crypto-currencies.
The internet is also exponentially exposing the screwing we peasants have been getting by the psychopath, narcissistic, hedonistic,
predatory lenders and controllers. Next comes the widespread, easily usable, and inexpensive cell phone apps, social media exposures,
alternative websites (like Unz.com), and other technologies that will quickly identify every lying, evil, jerk so they can be
neutrilized / avoided
"Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by
becoming more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North
American industrial economies."
I must be old; the economic textbooks I had did explain the benefits of freer trade among nations using Ricardo and Trade Indifference
Curves, but didn't prescribe any one political system being fostered by or even necessary for the benefits of international trade
to be reaped.
to be honest, this way of running things only need to last for 10-20 more years before automation will replace 800 million jobs.
then we will have a few trillionaire overlords unless true AI comes online. by that point nothing matters as we will become zoo
animals.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
That's true and the criminals do similar asset stripping to their own as well, through various means.
It's always the big criminals against the rest of us.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor
were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the
Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either.
The wars were also instigated to prevent either Germany or Russia having control of, and free access to warm water ports
and the wars also were an excuse to steal vast amounts of wealth from both Germany and Russia through various means.
All pious and pompous pretexts aside, economics was the motive for (the) war (s), and the issues are not settled to this day.
I.e., it's the same class of monstrously insatiable criminals who want everything for themselves who're causing the major troubles
of the day.
Unfortunately, as long as we have SoB's who're eager to sacrifice our blood and treasure for their
benfit, things will never change.
The golden rule is one thing. The paper rule is something else.
May you live in interesting times.
The golden rule is for dreamers, unfortunately. Those who control paper money rule, and your wish has been granted; we live
in times that are both interesting and fascinating, but are nevertheless the same old thing. Only the particular particulars
have changed.
Essentially, the anti-EU and anti-euro line that Professor Hudson has being pushing for years, which has now morphed into a pro-Putin
line as the anti-EU faction in the US have sought to use Putin as a "useful idiot" to destroy the EU. Since nobody in Europe reads
these articles, Ii doesn't really matter and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice of someone who has never
concealed his hostility to the EU's very existence: note the use of the racist slur "PIIGS" to refer to certain EU Member States.
Thus, Professor Hudson is simply pushing the "let Putin win in Ukraine" line dressed up in fine-sounding economic jargon.
Since nobody in Europe reads these articles, Ii doesn't really matter
None of it rally matters anyway, no matter how valid. To paraphrase Thucydides, the money grubbers do what they want and the
rest of us are forced to suck it up and limp along.
and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice
I doubt that that's Hudson's intent in writing the article. I see it as his attempt to explain the situation to those of us
who care about them even though our concern is pretty much useless.
I do thank him for taking the time to pen this stuff which I consider worthwhile and high quality.
That sounds good but social media is the weapon of choice in the EU too. Lot's of kids know and love Hudson. Any half capable
writer who empathetically explains why you're getting fucked is going to have some followers. Watering, nutrition, weeding. Before
too long you'll be on the Eurail to your destination.
said: "The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler." If true, so what?
That's a classic example of 'garbage in, garbage out'. http://www.codoh.com
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies,
which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists.
The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on,
as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible
sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived
to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system
to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out.
The proper
use by the US of its controlled system thus should be a defensive one -- mainly to act so fairly to all players that it, not someone
else, remains in control of the dominant worldwide exchange system. This sensible course of conduct, unfortunately, is not being
pursued by the US.
there is fuzzy, and then there is very fuzzy, and then there is the fuzziness compounded many-fold. The latter is this article.
Here from wiki: "
" Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation
of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories
of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form
of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not
essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself."
Wiki goes on to identify "rentier" as used by Marx, to be the same thing as "capitalists." What the above quotation says
is that capitalism CAN rid itself of genuine rent capital. First, the feudal rents that were extracted by landowners were NOT
part of a free market system. Serfdom was only one part of unfree conditions. A general condition of anarchy in rules and laws
by petty principalities characteristic of feudalism, both contained commerce and human beings. There was no freedom, political
or economic.
The conflation (collapsing) of rents and interest is a Marxist error which expands into complete nonsense when a competitive
economy has replaced feudal conditions. ON top of that, profits from a business, firm, or industrial enterprise are NOT rents.
Any marxist is a fool to pretend otherwise, and is just another ideological (False consciousness ) fanatic.
Germany loans money back to the poorer nations who buy her exports just as China loans money to the United States (they purchase
roughly a third of our Treasury bonds) so that Americans can continue to buy Chinese manufactured goods.
The role to be played by the USA in the "new world order" is that of being the farmer to the world. The meticulous Asians will
make stuff.
The problem with this is that it is based on 19th century notions of manufacturing. Technique today is vastly more complicated
than it was in the 1820′s and a nation must do everything in its power to protect and nurture its manufacturing and scientific
excellence. In the United States we have been giving this away to our competitors. We educate their children at our taxpayer's
expense and they take the knowledge gained back to their native countries where, with state subsidies, they build factories that
put Americans out of work. We fall further and further behind.
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process
up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War
with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported
by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum
dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia
decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI
century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something
is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.
For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary
of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S.
administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.
The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean
nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump
urged
Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic
sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.
Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have
abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the
deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in
2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision
to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that
Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.
North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar
Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment
to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya
back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed
Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North
Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement
with Pyongyang
nearly
impossible.
The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security
Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing
that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes.
Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.
Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates
succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:
The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds
that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets
steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced
they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad
in Syria.
The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had
cynically
misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German
Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance
would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation
is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly
matters of
intensecontroversy . But invoking
a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.
There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been
part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully
tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which
would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.
The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another
example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia,
a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo
for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West
would use subsequently in Libya.
Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt
for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear
that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition
of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial
move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their
own.
Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing
international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point
explicitly in a February 2008 State Department
briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.
It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign
policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and
the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with
Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue
through diplomacy are so bleak.
Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy
objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books,
the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.
you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just
buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.
This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent
years.
One point in particular jumped out at me:
"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian
(and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly
bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU
members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders
protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent.
Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."
This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia
is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and
the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and,
more famously, in Ukraine.
You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one
of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a
Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.
The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently
on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block
countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts
to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess.
Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around
the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus
unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with
only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled
by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!
Most seriously
of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong,
even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.
And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin,
is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing,
isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's
country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?
The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government,
supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because
the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.
Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."
I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this,
I don't know.
"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "
If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What
do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we
call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of
influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.
At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass
destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.
One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what
it wants.
Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries
feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad
or backyard."
Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering
and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large
percentage of the bill.
Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.
Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military
presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed
by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely,
after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well
done.)
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan
's precedent.
The subtext here – of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements – is even more relevant with respect
to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace
of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.
Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal
aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it
is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about
"projecting" – in every sense of the word – an equally globalist US ideology.
We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter,
as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War
ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't
want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters
of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated
USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything
on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".
The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities
in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya
etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't
connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters
of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the
Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for
Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's
Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35
million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?
Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia
as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that
construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision
and Putin knows it.
In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's
been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove
(former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks
whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.
U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending
the befuddled taxpayers the bill.
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym
for "oral."
I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for
oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."
Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded
a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every
time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian
cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.
As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with
the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations
of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there
are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty
comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?
When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine
where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its
foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.
"... "President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said
that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call. ..."
"... The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to the
YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal.
Despite that, supply for the YPG continued. In total over 3,500 truckloads were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the
YPK received some 120 armored Humvees , mine clearance vehicles and other equipment. ..."
"... The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made.
The Washington Post writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and
uncertain what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from
the National Security Council." ..."
"... The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support its occupation of north-east Syria, The intent
of the occupation is , for now, to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change": ..."
"... When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called
Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument
that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S. announced to arm the YPG directly without the cover of
the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa. ..."
"... A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic Turkman Talaf Silo, recently defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish
government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The
whole concept is a sham. ..."
"... Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but
either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent
thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil
foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once! ..."
"... Trump personally sent General Flynn to recruit back Erdogan and the Turks right before the election. Flynn wrote his now infamous
editorial "Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support" and published in "The Hill". http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support
..."
"... But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor, you
will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF and US State
Dept failed. ..."
"... Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he did
for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not just the
Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas and Russian naval
power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear. ..."
"... Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup was
staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort not just
because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that: the road to Tehran
runs through Damascus .) ..."
President Trump is attempting to calm down the U.S.
conflict with Turkey . The
military junta in the White House has different
plans. It now attempts to circumvent the decision the president communicated to his Turkish counterpart. The result will be more
Turkish-U.S. acrimony.
Yesterday the Turkish foreign minister surprisingly
announced a phone call
President Trump had held with President Erdogan of Turkey.
United States President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke on the phone on Nov. 24 only days after
a Russia-Turkey-Iran summit on Syria, with Ankara saying that Washington has pledged not to send weapons to the People's Protection
Units (YPG) any more .
"President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said
that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call.
Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited
in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!
12:04 PM - 24 Nov 2017
During the phone call Trump must have escaped his minders for a moment and promptly tried to make, as announced, peace with Erdogan.
The issue of arming the YPG is really difficult for Turkey to swallow. Ending that would probably make up for the
recent NATO blunder of presenting the founder of modern Turkey Kemal Atatürk and Erdogan himself as enemies.
The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to
the YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been
recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal. Despite that, supply for the YPG continued.
In total over
3,500 truckloads
were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the YPK received
some 120 armored Humvees ,
mine clearance vehicles and other equipment.
The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made.
The Washington Post
writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and uncertain
what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from the
National Security Council."
The White House finally released what the Associated Presscalled :
a cryptic statement about the phone call that said Trump had informed the Turk of "pending adjustments to the military support
provided to our partners on the ground in Syria."
Neither a read-out of the call nor the statement AP refers to are currently available on the White House website.
The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support
its
occupation of north-east Syria, The intent of the occupation is , for now,
to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change":
U.S. officials have said they plan to keep American troops in northern Syria -- and continue working with Kurdish fighters --
to pressure Assad to make concessions during peace talks brokered by the United Nations in Geneva, stalemated for three years
now. "We're not going to just walk away right now," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last week.
To solidify its position the U.S. needs to further build up and strengthen its YPG mercenary forces.
When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called
Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument
that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S.
announced
to arm the YPG directly without the cover of the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa.
The YPG had been unwilling to fight for the Arab city unless the U.S. would provide it with more money, military supplies and
support. All were provided. The U.S. special forces, who control the YPG fighters, directed an immense amount of aerial and artillery
ammunition against the city. Any potential enemy position was destroyed by large ammunition and intense bombing before the YPG infantry
proceeded. In the end few YPG fighters died in the fight. The Islamic State was let go or eliminated from the city but
so was the city of Raqqa . The intensity
of the bombardment of the medium size city was at times ten
times greater than the bombing in all of Afghanistan. Airwarsreported :
Since June, an estimated 20,000 munitions were fired in support of Coalition operations at Raqqa . Images captured by journalists
in the final days of the assault show a city in ruins
Several thousand civilians were killed in the indiscriminate onslaught.
The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is defeated. It no longer holds any ground. There is no longer any justification to further
arm and supply the YPG or the dummy organization SDF.
But the generals want to continue to do so to further their larger plans. They are laying grounds to circumvent their president's
promise. The Wall Street Journal seems to be the only outlet to
pick up on the subterfuge:
President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to stop sending weapons directly to Kurdish militants battling Islamic State
in Syria, dealing a political blow to the U.S.'s most reliable ally in the civil war, officials said Friday.
...
The Turkish announcement came as a surprise in Washington, where military and political officials in Mr. Trump's administration
appeared to be caught off-guard. U.S. military officials said they had received no new guidance about supplying weapons to the
Kurdish forces. But they said there were no immediate plans to deliver any new weapons to the group. And the U.S. can continue
to provide the Kurdish forces with arms via the umbrella Syrian militant coalition
The "military officials" talking to the WSJ have found a way to negate Trump's promise. A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic
Turkman Talaf Silo, recently
defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its
political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The whole concept is a sham.
But the U.S. needs the YPG to keep control of north-east Syria. It has to continue to provide whatever the YPG demands, or it
will have to give up its larger scheme against Syria.
The Turkish government will soon find out that the U.S. again tried to pull wool over its eyes. Erdogan will be furious when he
discovers that the U.S. continues to supply war material to the YPG, even when those deliveries are covered up as supplies for the
SDF.
The Turkish government released
a photograph showing
Erdogan and five of his aids taking Trump's phonecall. Such a release and the announcement of the call by the Turkish foreign minister
are very unusual. Erdogan is taking prestige from the call and the public announcement is to make sure that Trump sticks to his promise.
This wide publication will also increase Erdogan's wrath when he finds out that he was again deceived.
Posted by b on November 25, 2017 at 12:14 PM |
Permalink
Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but
either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent
thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil
foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once!
Some
interpret this act on Election eve as a pecuniary fulfillment by Flynn of a lobbying contract (which existed).
But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor,
you will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF
and US State Dept failed.
Flynn understood the crucial need for US and NATO to hold Turkey and prevent the Russians from getting Erdogan as an ally for
Syria and the Black Sea, the Balkans and Mediterranean as well as Iran, Qatar and Eurasia. Look at what has transpired between
Turkey and Russia since. Gas will be flowing through the Turkish Stream and Erdogan conforms to Putin's wishes.
Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he
did for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not
just the Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas
and Russian naval power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear.
Flynn was on it for Trump. And the IC and State want him prosecuted for defying their efforts to replace Erdogan with a stooge
like Gulen. It looks like Mueller is pursuing that against the General.
Its not a problem for US to drop Kurds if they are no longer needed, BUT for now they are essential for US/Israel/Saudi goals,
therefore you can bet 100% Kurds support will continue. Trump's order (he hasn't made it official either) will be easily circumvented.
The real question is, what Resistance will do with the backstabbing Kurds? It wont be easy to make a deal while Kurds
maintain absurd demands and as long as they have full Axis of Terror support.
Go Iraq's way like they reclaimed Kirkuk? US might have sitten out that one, I doubt they'll allow this to happen in Syria
as well, unless they get something in return.
While America's standard duplicity of saying one thing while doing the opposite has been known for decades, they have been able
to play games mainly because of the weakness of the other actors in the region.
The tables have turned now, but America still thinks it holds top dog position.
Wordplay, semantics and legal loopholes wont be tolerated for very long, and when hundreds of US boots return home in body bags
a choice will have to be made - escalate, or run away.
Previous behavior dictates run away, but times have changed.
A cornered enemy is the most dangerous, and the USA has painted itself into a very small corner...
Gee. While reading B's article what got to my mind is: "Turkey is testing the ground". Whatever Trump said to Erdogan on the phone,
it seems to me that the Turks are playing a card to see how the different actors in the US that seems to follow different agendas
will react. If Turkey concludes that the US will continue to back YPG, it's split from the US and will be definitive.
Erdogan is shifting away from US/NATO. He even hinted today that he might talk to Assad. That's huge! I wouldn't be surprised
if Turkey leaves NATO sooner than later. And if it's the case, it will be a major move of a tectonic amplitude.
Trump.. "Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited
in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!"
Surely by now Erdogan must realise that whatever the US President says and promises will be circumvented by the State Department,
the Pentagon, the 17 US intel agencies (including the CIA and the NSA) and rogue individuals in these and other US government
departments and agencies, and in Congress as well (Insane McCain comes to mind)? Not to mention the fact that the Israeli government
and the pro-Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill exercise huge influence over sections of the US government.
If Erdogan hasn't figured out the schizoid behaviour of the US from past Turkish experience and the recent experience of Turkey's
neighbours (and the Ukraine is one such neighbour), he must not be receiving good information.
Though as Jean says, perhaps Erdogan is giving the US one last chance to demonstrate that it has a coherent and reliable policy
towards the Middle East.
Well, the US policy has been coherent and reliable in the last years. It enhanced local conflicts, supported both sides at
the same time but with different intensities. Whoever wins would be "our man". Old stuff since the Byzantine period. It always
takes a lot of time to prove the single actions that were done. In most cases we learn about it years later. The delay is so big
and unpleasant that quite a number of folks escapes to stupid narratives that explain everything in one step, and therefore nothing.
By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type of Arabic
nationalism illegitimate?
The Kurds (PKK basically) are only necessary to give a "face" to the force the US is trying to align in E. Syria. The "fighting"
against ISIS (if there really was any) is coming to a close. The Chiefs of ISIS have been airlifted to somewhere nearby, and the
foreign mercenary forces sent elsewhere by convoy. ALL the valuable personnel have now become "HTS2" with reversible vests. These,
plus the US special forces are the basis of a new armed anti-Syrian force. (Note that one general let slip that there are 5'000
US forces in E-Syria - not the 500 spoken of in the MSM).
So Trump may well be correct in saying that the Kurds (specifically) will not get any more arms - because they have other demands
and might make peace with the Syrian Government, to keep at least some part of their territorial gains. The ISIS "bretheren" and
foreign mercenaries do not want any peaceful solution because it would mean their elimination.. So The CIA and Pentagon will probably
continue arms supplies to "HTS2" - but not the Kurds.
(ex-ISIS members; Some are from Saudi Arabia, Qatar - the EU and the US, as well as parts of Russia and China. They are not
farming types but will find themselves with some of the best arable land in Syria. Which belonged to Syrian-arabs-christians-Druzes-Yadzis
etc. Who wil want their properties back.)
Note that the US forces at Tanf are deliberately not letting humanitarian help reach the nearby refugee camp. Starvation and
deprivation will force many of the younger members to become US paid terrorists.
thanks b.. i tend to agree with @4 jean and @5 jen... the way i see it, there is either a real disconnect inside the usa where
the president gets to say one thing, but another part of the establishment can do another, or trump has made his last lie to turkey
here and turkey is going to say good bye to it's involvement with the usa in any way that can be trusted.. seems like some kind
of internal usa conflict to me at this point, but maybe it is all smoke and mirrors to continue on with the same charade.. i mostly
think internal usa conflict at this point..
Odd that no one has mentioned the fact the US was behind the attempted coup, where Erdogan was on a plane with two rogue Syrian
jets that stood down rather than execute the kill shot. I have read opinion that the fighter pilots were "lit up" by Russian missile
batteries and informed by radio they would not survive unless they shut down their weapons targeting immediately. This is probably
a favour Putin reminds Erdogan of on a regular basis, whenever Erdo tries to play Sultan. The attempted coup/asassination also
shows Erdogan exactly how much he can trust the US/Zionists at any level.
And Edrogan must also know Syria was once at least partly in the US-orbit, as Syria was the destination for many well-documented
US-ordered rendition/torture cases. It is probable Mossad (or their proxy thugs) killed Assad's father and older brother, so Erdo
knows he's better relying on Putin than Trumpty Dumbdy.
Erdogan is about to make a u-turn toward Syria. He is furious at Saudi Arabia for boycotting its ally Qatar, for talking about
owning Sunni Islam and by the continuous support of Islamists and Sunni Kurds in Syria.
Erdogan is preparing the turkish public opinion to a shift away from the USA-Israeli axis. This may get him many points in the
2019 election if the war in Syria is stopped, most Syrian refugees are back, Turkish companies are involved in the reconstruction
and the YPG neutralized. Erdogan has 1 year and half to make this to happen. For that he badly needs Bashar al Assad and his army
on his side.
Therefore he is evaluating what is the next move and he needs to know where the USA is standing about Turkey and Syria. Until
now the messages from the USA are contradictory yet Erdogan keeps telling his supporters that the USA is plotting against Turkey
and against Islam. Erdogan's reputation also is been threatened by the outcome of Reza Zarrab's trial in the US where the corruption
of his party may be exposed.
That is why Erdogan is making another check about the US intentions before Erdogan he starts the irreversible shift toward
the Iran-Russia (+Qatar and Syria) axis.
missing in this analysis is oil gas ... producers, refiners, slavers, middle crooks, and the LNG crowd :Israel, Fracking, LNG
and wall street... these are the underlying directing forces that will ultimately dictate when the outsiders have had enough fight
against Assad over Assad's oil and Assad's refusal to allow outsiders to install their pipelines. Until then, gangland intelligence
agencies will continue the divide, destroy and conquer strategies sufficient to keep the profits flowing. The politicians cannot
move until the underlying corruptions resolve..
The word 'byzantine' has been used for centuries to describe the intricate and multi-leveled forms of agreement, betrayal, treachery
and achievement among the shifting power brokers in the region. The US alone has three major and another three minor players at
work - often fighting each other. If however, it thinks it can outplay people whose lives are steeped in such a living tradition,
it is sadly deluded and will one day be in for a very rude surprise. Even the Russians have had difficulty navigating that maze.
When confronted with such a 'Gordian knot' of treachery and shifting alliances, Alexander the Great drew his sword and cut
through it with a vision informed by the sage Socrates as taught by Aristotle.
Despite claiming to represent such a western heritage, the US has no such Socratic wisdom, no Aristotelian logic, and no visionary
leadership that could enable it to do what Alexander did. Lacking this, it is destined to get lost in its' own hubris, and be
consumed by our current version of that region's gordian knot.
'...By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type
of Arabic nationalism illegitimate?..'
...showing that he either knows only the crap spouted by wikipedia...or nothing at all about the Baath party...
...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism...[an obvious oxymoron
to be pan-national and 'nationalist' at the same time...]
Of course there is always a 'better way'...right Hausmaus...?
The Baath socialism under Saddam in Iraq was no good for anyone we recall...especially women, students, sick people etc...
A 'better way' has since been installed and it is working beautifully...all can agree...
Same thing in Libya...where the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was no good for anyone...
Of course everyone wanted the 'Better Way'...all those doctoral graduates with free education and guaranteed jobs...a standard
of living better than some European countries...etc...
Again...removing the 'socialist' Kadafi has worked out wonderfully...
We now have black African slaves sold in open air markets...where before they did all the broom pushing that was beneath the
dignity of the Libyan Arabs...
...and were quite happy to stay there and have a job and paycheck...instead of now flooding the shores of Italy in anything
that can float...
Oh yes...why would anyone in Syria want to be governed by the socialist Baath party...?
...especially the Kurds...who just over the border in Turkey are not even recognized as humans...never mind speaking their
own language...
I'd really hoped that Donald Trump® would be the "outsider" that both the MSM and he have been insisting he is for the past couple
of years. Other than the Reality TV Show faux conflicts with which the MSM entertains us nightly, I see no such "rogue" Administration.
This say one thing, and do the other has been US foreign policy forever.
Recall, for instance that on February 21, 2014, Obama's State Department issued a statement hailing Ukrainian President Yanukovych
for signing an agreement with the "pro-democracy Maidan Protest" leaders in which he acquiesced to all of their demands.
Then, on February 22, 2014, the US State Department cheered the "peaceful and Constitutional" coup after neo-nazis stormed
the Parliament.
A few months later, Secretary of State Kerry hailed the Minsk Treaty to end the war in Ukraine. Later that day, Vickie Nuland
said there was no way her Ukies would stop shelling civilians, and sure enough they didn't (until they'd been on the retreat for
weeks, and came whimpering back to the negotiations table).
A couple years later, Kerry announced that the US and Russia would coordinate aerial assaults in Syria. The next day, "Defense"
Secretary Carter said, "no way," and within a week or so, we "accidentally" bombed Syrian forces at Deir ez Zoir for over an hour.
From my perspective, they keep us chasing the next squirrel, while bickering amongst each other about each squirrel. But the
wolves are still devouring the lambs, with only the Bear preventing a complete extinction.
What we know with at least some level of confidence...
Dump is not the 'decider'...the junta is...he's just a cardboard cutout sitting behind the oval office desk...
And he's got no one to blame but himself...he came in talking a big game about cleaning house and got himself cleaned out of
being an actual president...
This was inevitable from the moment he caved on Flynn...the only person he didn't need to vet with the senate...and a position
that wields a lot of power...
This was his undoing on many levels...not only because he faced a hostile deep state and even his own party in congress with
no one by his side [other than Flynn]...
...but because it showed that he had no balls and would not stand by his man...
This is not the stuff leaders are made of...
The same BS we see with Turkey is playing out with Russia on the Ukraine issue...
Now the junta and their enablers in congress want to start sending offensive arms to Ukraine...Dump and his platitudes to Putin...no
matter how much he may mean it...mean nothing...he's not in charge...
I think that Jean @4 has the best take on this: Erdoğan went very public on Trump's "promise" in a classic put-up-or-shut-up challenge
to the USA.
Either the word of a POTUS means something or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then Turkey is going to join Russia in concluding
that the USA as simply not-agreement-capable.
Erdoğan will then say "enough!!!", give the USA the two-finger-salute, and then take Turkey out of NATO.
And the best thing about it will be that McMaster, Kelly and Mathis will be so obsessed with playing their petty little games
that they won't see it coming.
It's hard to tell what Erdoğan is doing or intending other than that he is navigating something - objective TBD. It'll be interesting
to see if he constrains the use of Incirlik airbase should the US keep arming the YPG/PKK forces. Airpower is the enabler (sole
enabler, IMO) of the/any Kurdish overreach inside Syria. Seems like Erdoğan holds the ace card in this muddle but has yet to play
it.
Seems like Turkey has more than one card to play. A commenter on another site mentioned recently that the US really doesn't
want Erdogan to have that S-400 system from Russia. Got me thinking, could Russia have deliberately loaded Erdogan's hand with
that additional card to help him negotiate with the US?
Turkey may well leave NATO and as others have pointed out, this would be a game changer far beyond the matter of the US's illegal
presence in NE Syria. This possibility brings immense existential gravitas to Erdogan's position right now. He could ask
for many concessions at this point, not to leave. And from the Eurasian point of view, it doesn't matter if he leaves or stays,
while from the western view, it matters greatly.
Would the US give up Syria, in order to keep Turkey in NATO? It's a western dichotomy, not one that affects Asia. It would
be simple to throw S-400 at that dynamic to watch it squirm.
The plays the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.
- Hamlet
As the endgame plays out, Erdogan's conscience may be revealed.
b has made the point that the partition that US-led proxy forces have carved out is unsustainable. But it would be sustainable
if Erdogan can be convinced to allow trade via Turkey.
For that reason, I thought Trump's ceasing direct military aid to the Kurds made sense as it provided Erdogan with an excuse
to allow land routes for trade/supply. Erdogan can argue that he wants to encourage such good behavior and doesn't want to make
US an enemy (Turkey is still a NATO country).
Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup
was staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort
not just because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that:
the road to Tehran runs through Damascus .)
Hasn't Erdogan's vehement anti-Kurdish stance done R+6 a disservice? It seems to me that it has helped USA to convince
Kurds to fight for them and has also been a convenient excuse for Erdogan to hold onto Idlib where al Queda forces have refuge.
If Erdogan was really soooo angry with Washington, and soooo dependent on Moscow, then why not relax his anti-Kurdish
stance so as to bring Kurds back into the Syrian orbit?
Jackrabbit @20:
Erdogan may feel that if he relaxed his stance against the Syrian Kurds, it could embolden Turkish Kurds to further pursue their
agenda. It would also make him appear weak towards his supporters.
Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he? It would be the stupidest chess move ever? He's in the club and they can't
kick him out. He can cause all the trouble he wants and hobble that huge machine that is the western alliance. He will not get
EU membership, but he has his NATO ID CARD and that ain't bad. Erdo now knows that the poor bastard Trumps is WORTHLESS that he
is a toothless executive in name only. This is a wake up call, if I were Erdo, I would be very afraid of the USA and it's Syria,
MENA policy. It is being run by LUNATICS and is a slow moving train wreak. So for now, Erdo must be looking at Moscow, admiring
Putin for this is a man who has his shit together and truly knows how to run a country. Maybe even a sense of admiration and more
respect for Putin is even present. If I were Erdo, I'd double down in my support for Russia's Syria policy.
You do not get it:
„...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism..."
According to this ideology the coherence of a society comes from where? And who is excluded if one applies it?
So your contribution is just a rant using rancidic rhetoric tools. But I will not call you „flunkerbandit". My advice is to move
to this area and have a look into such a society from a more close position. Armchair type of vocal leadership does not help.
@23 "Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he?"
I guess one possible reason would be this: as long as Turkey remains in NATO then he is obliged to allow a US military presence
in his country, and that's just asking for another attempt at a military coup.
After all, wasn't Incirlik airbase a hotbed of coup-plotters during the last coup attempt?
"when the Syrian settlement is achieved, Syria's democratic forces will join the Syrian army." "When the Syrian state stabilizes, we can say that the Americans did what they said, then withdraw as they did in Iraq and
set a date for their departure and leave."
Nothing new here, nothing good either. Kurds so far are keeping up their demands of de-facto independence under fig-leaf of
"we are part of federalised Syria" with weak central government and autonomous Kurds. Thats how US plan to castrate Syria. Russia
offered cultural autonomy, Kurds rejected.
As for Americans "withdrawing" willfully, it never happened. Iraq had to kick them out, and then US used ISIS and Kurds to
get back in.
As for Syria's stabilization part, US is doing everything in its power to prevent it.
@Yeah Right #26
Turkey is not obliged to keep foreign troops in their country to remain in NATO. De Gaulle invited the US to leave France in 1967
but is still a member of NATO
@31 France actually withdrew from NATO in 1966. It remained "committed" to the collective defence of western Europe, without being,
you know, "committed" to it.
So, yeah, France kicked all the foreign troops out of France in 1967, precisely because its withdrawal from NATO's Integrated
Military Command meant that the French were no longer under any obligation to allow NATO troops on its soil.
But France had to formally withdraw from that Command first, and the reason that de Gaulle gave for withdrawing were exactly
that: remaining meant ceding sovereignty to a supra-national organization i.e. NATO Integrated Military Command.
That France retained "membership" of NATO's political organizations even after that withdrawal was little more than a fig-leaf.
After all, NATO's purpose isn't "political", it is "military".
"The Decider" is Trump's apparent self image. He can't be enjoying the Presidency and the controls exerted upon him by others
among the "Deep State" (whom I suppose have effectively cowed him into behaving via serious threats).
If he already had money and power, as it appears that he had, he gained little by taking the crown. He has less power because
he is now controlled by a number of forces (CIA, NSA, Media, MIC and etc.) as he remains under constant assault by his natural
opposition.
Big mistake dumping Flynn.
Now you take another kind of asshole in the person of Obama - a guy that had nothing - you have a malleable character who enjoys
the pomp and circumstance. Really didn't need any persuading to do anything required of him.
Here is a recent report from the Turkish Prime Minister supporting Trump's "lie" about ending support for the Kurds....what will
history show occured?
ISTANBUL, Nov. 26 (Xinhua) -- Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said on Sunday that his country is expecting the United
States to end its partnership with the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People's Protection
Units (YPG).
"Since the very beginning, we have said that it is wrong for the U.S. to partner with PKK's cousin PYD and YPG in the fight
against Daesh (Islamic State) terrorist group," Yildirim told the press in Istanbul prior to his departure for Britain.
Ankara sees the Kurdish groups as an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) fighting against the Turkish government
for over 30 years, while Washington regards them as a reliable ground force against the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daesh.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday spoke to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the phone, pledging not to
provide weapons to the YPG any more, an irritant that has hurt bilateral ties, according to the Turkish side.
Yildirim noted that Washington has described it as an obligation rather than an option to support the Kurdish groups on the
ground. "But since Daesh (IS) is now eliminated then this obligation has disappeared," he added.
It would be nice if Erdogan when withdrawing from NATO (Assuming he does this in the next 12-18 months) would say something like.
"We really like President Trump - and we trust his word implicitly. The problem is, although we trust his word, we know
he is not in control so his word is useless and best ignored. Though of course - we still trust he means well."
That would be a nice backhander to hear from Erdopig.
Speculation about Turkey leaving NATO seems farfetched. Turkey has NATO over a barrel. It has been a member for decades and what
would it gain by leaving? Nothing. By staying it continues to influence and needle at the same time. Turkey will only leave when
NATO throws it out, which isn't going to happen.
But on Tuesday Israel's own Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman flatly contradicted the prime minister's jingoistic alarmism by
saying that there are no Iranian military forces in Syria, but instead merely stuck to acknowledging "experts and advisers". In comments
to Israel's Ynet news, Lieberman admitted , "We must preserve
our security interests. It is true that there are a number of Iranian experts and advisers, but there is no Iranian military force
on Syrian land."
The comments came on the same day that the IDF Spokesperson
made provocative and controversial statements , announcing
that in the next Israel-Hezbollah War, "Nasrallah is a target" for assassination and that Israel is currently conducting psychological
and media warfare against Hezbollah. But Defense Minister Lieberman's statement flies in the face of claims made by Netanyahu in
his speech before the UN General Assembly this year when he said, "We will act to prevent Iran from establishing permanent military
bases in Syria for its air, sea and ground forces. We will act to prevent Iran from producing deadly weapons in Syria... And we will
act to prevent Iran from opening new terror fronts against Israel along our northern border."
According to a BBC report dubiously sourced to
"a Western intelligence source" from earlier this month, Syria stands
accused of hosting a sizable Iranian military base south of Damascus, a story which Israel utilized to ratchet up rhetoric in
preparing its case before the international community for further attacks on supposed Iranian targets inside Syria. Israel has long
justified its attacks inside Syria by claiming to be acting against Hezbollah and Iranian targets.
But Lieberman's surprising comments represent a significant potential backing away from what appeared to be Israel's long running
official stance on the issue. According to Tel Aviv based Haaretz newspaper, Lieberman
responded as follows when presented with the contradiction
:
Netanyahu has said Iran is working to build military bases in Syria, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and its leader there,
Qassem Soleimani, have been photographed in the war-torn country neighboring Israel to the north. When asked about this discrepancy,
Lieberman said that "all the regional forces know we are the strongest power in the area. Israel is a regional power."
"Iran has a strategy to creating proxies everywhere. Obviously, they are not physically in Lebanon, that's what's Hezbollah is
for. In Yemen, they're not physically present, they created the Houthi rebels. They have the same plan in Syria: creating different
kinds of militias."
It could be that this new emphasis on acknowledging Iranian "proxies" while stopping short of claiming direct Iranian military
presence - a clear lessening of Israel's intensifying rhetoric of late - is connected to a potential Syria-Israeli back channel deal
to demilitarize the Golan region. We
reported yesterday that unconfirmed Israeli sources are claiming that Putin is personally mediating demands issued between Assad
and Netanyahu after both leaders traveled to meet with Putin within the past months.
The Jerusalem Post
published a story early this week based on a well placed Israeli source privy to diplomatic maneuvering between Moscow, Tel Aviv,
and Damascus. The report said, "the source, who remains unnamed, said that during Syrian President Bashar Assad's
surprise visit to Russia last week, Assad gave Russian Premier Vladimir Putin a message for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
Damascus will agree to a demilitarized zone of up to 40 kilometers from the border in the Golan Heights as part of a comprehensive
agreement between the two countries, but only if Israel does not work to remove Assad's regime from power."
Meanwhile, both Israel and Saudi Arabia have increasingly gone public with their covert relationship based on intelligence sharing
against what both sides perceive to be a strong and expansionist Iran.
Earlier this month Israel Defense Force (IDF) chief-of-staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot gave
an unprecedented interview to a prominent Saudi newspaper in which he said that, "Israel is ready to share intelligence with
Riyadh on their shared arch-foe Iran." Eizenkot explained further, according to Tel Aviv based
i24NEWS , that "Israel and Riyadh - which he noted have never fought one another - are in complete agreement about Iran's intentions
to dominate the Middle East."
And like Israel, Saudi Arabia has long scapegoated Iran and the region's Shia for all of it's problems , especially as it wages
its brutal war on Yemen.
But on Tuesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani hit back. In comments picked up by
Reuters , he said that Saudi Arabia presents Iran as an enemy because it wants to cover up its defeats in the region. Rouhani
said in the midst of a live interview on state television, "Saudi Arabia was unsuccessful in Qatar, was unsuccessful in Iraq, in
Syria and recently in Lebanon. In all of these areas, they were unsuccessful," and added further, "So they want to cover up their
defeats."
These words of course could just as well be aimed at Israel too. And with today's surprise admission by Israel's defense minister
- that there is "no Iranian military force on Syrian land" - it could be that Israel's bluff has finally been called.
"... "USA protects SDF and ISIS east of the Euphrates and agreed that Russia won't fly over the area occupied by the US Forces in
north-east Syria. USA is officially an occupation force in the Levant." ..."
"... "The United States is prepared to explore the possibility of establishing with Russia joint mechanisms for ensuring stability,
including no-fly zones, on the ground ceasefire observers, and coordinated delivery of humanitarian assistance" ..."
Earlier today this tweet by Elijiah Magnier caught my eye.
"USA protects SDF and ISIS east of the Euphrates and agreed that Russia won't fly over the area occupied by the US Forces
in north-east Syria. USA is officially an occupation force in the Levant."
Seems the US and Russia have agreed to using the Euphrates as a de facto border between the SAA and its allies and the US-supported
YPG/SDF at least for a while. This is in line with statements made by Tillerson prior to the G20 summit held on 7 July in Hamburg.
"The United States is prepared to explore the possibility of establishing with Russia joint mechanisms for ensuring stability,
including no-fly zones, on the ground ceasefire observers, and coordinated delivery of humanitarian assistance"
This temporary arrangement makes sense for Damascus. There are still plenty of fires to extinguish on Syrian territory west of
the Euphrates. Why spread their forces thin again just when they are now able to concentrate their forces to address those fires.
Besides, there is still plenty of time for the negotiation and reconciliation process to achieve victory without further bloodshed.
I have no doubt. Syria will be whole once again.
I'm sure CENTCOM sees this differently. I think the grand scheme was to establish an enduring US-controlled enclave encompassing
all of Iraqi Kurdistan, Rojava and the Arab lands of eastern Syria. I bet there was a plan for establishing a new CENTCOM forward
headquarters in Erbil to oversee this vast enclave. The premature Kurdish bid for independence blew a gaping hole in that plan. Iraqi
Kurdistan lost its border with Syria. With that loss went CENTCOM's secure land route from Kirkuk and Erbil to its growing bases
in northeast Syria.
Another purpose of this "CENTCOM Caliphate" was to prevent the establishment of a land route from Teheran to Damascus and on to
Beirut. With the liberation of Abu Kamal by a combined force of SAA, IRGC, Hezbollah and allied militias, that part of the CENTCOM
plan also floundered on the rocks. The presence of Qassem Soleimani at this victory must have been a bitter pill to swallow at CJTF
-- OIR headquarters.
Another disappointment CENTCOM must face is their now useless base at Al Tanf and the Rukban refugee camp. This base was meant
to support our "moderate jihadis" and to help prevent the establishment of the Shia Crescent. Another dream dashed. We are now faced
with a near abandoned base and a dire and embarrassing humanitarian crisis at Rubkan.
CENTCOM has always wanted a major physical presence in their AOR. They've had that for a long time now, ever since Desert Storm.
Prior to that, they were bitterly jealous of EUCOM and PACOM. They would be much smarter to forgo their dreams of forward-based grandeur
and return to being a CONUS-based command headquarters controlling training, exercise and limited operational deployments in their
AOR. And for God's sake, get out of Syria. Between the Astana meetings and the upcoming Sochi National Dialogue Conference, Russia
has this covered.
"... "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)
"... The over-riding trajectory of course is the ongoing fall of Pax Americana, and its replacement by a Pax Multiplicita. Nobody
really knows what the latter will look like, and so nations and their elite factions will be trying everything to jockey themselves
into an advantageous position both internally and externally. We see this process everywhere, including in the USA itself as well as
Europe and Asia. ..."
"... The resurrection of Syria and Iraq, under the wings of Russia and Iran, has shocked MENA. Things ain't what they used to be,
and there's no going back. ..."
Israel, Saudi Arabia Setting Preconditions for War with Hezbollah
I think something completely different is going on. Global alignments are changing fast, and MENA is currently at the focal
point. Every player there is looking at a radically different deck of cards than the one in play just 3 years ago, and radically
different players. Confusions reign, both internal and between nations. Events will move along a sum vector which is itself a
sum of the various vectors their respective internal elite factions are pulling. Internal policy and power struggles will surface,
and there will be lots of false signals. I think war with Iran/Hezbollah is one of them.
In such conditions, we can expect a lot of noise and very little signal, but the trajectories are coming clear. The over-riding
trajectory of course is the ongoing fall of Pax Americana, and its replacement by a Pax Multiplicita. Nobody really knows what
the latter will look like, and so nations and their elite factions will be trying everything to jockey themselves into an advantageous
position both internally and externally. We see this process everywhere, including in the USA itself as well as Europe and Asia.
The resurrection of Syria and Iraq, under the wings of Russia and Iran, has shocked MENA. Things ain't what they used to
be, and there's no going back. The KSA, as both the linchpin of Pax Americana's dollar system, and as the least socially
developed country in MENA faces the greatest challenges in adapting itself to whatever is coming next. Its demographics are a
powder keg, with more than 50% of the disenfranchised population <25 yrs of age and chaffing under a medieval death cult that
has ruled for a century. It is now or never for the KSA. Change now, or societal chaos and a bloody collapse will be the KSA's
contribution to Pax Multiplicita.
I think the new Crown Prince understands that, and while still wet-behind-the-ears is determined to change it Now! He's
no Wahhabi, and he recognizes Wahhabism for the dead end it is. Last month, in a speech to an investment forum in Riyadh he declared:
"We will return to the former state of affairs, to moderate Islam, which is open to the world, and all other religions. We
will not wait for 30 years, we will swiftly deal a blow to extremist ideologies,"
Let those words sink in. No Saudi, royal or otherwise, has dared to utter their equal. In the event, swift he was. He drained
the Saudi swamp in a (fort)night of the long knives, reportedly incarcerating 2400+ elites, including some of the wealthiest and
most powerful, 1000 Imams and 30+ Generals. That alone is a remarkable fact, showing he has shrewdly developed a like-thinking
power base under the noses of the KSA's Pax Americana sycophants and fanatical Wahhabis. This is not a man to be trifled with.
By way of international support, the old King made what amounted to pilgrimages to Beijing and then to Moscow to seek their
blessing (inter alia). In Beijing he got $120B+ in commitments for development projects, in Moscow he got cooperation in oil markets
and (crucially) S-400 Air Defense systems. After his "palace coup" he got words of support, with Xi Jingping being particularly
warmly supportive.
Yes he's young, inexperienced, and has had to fight internal battles we'll never know about which no doubt contributed to some
of his apparent international blunders, but to think that he will now willingly opt for war with a Moscow ally is to think him
either mad, or an imbecile. I don't think he's either. He's delivering Trumpian campaign promises to the KSA (to the wild approval
of the country's youth) and quite probably suckering the Israelis into a stupid move while at it.
The term "Pax Americana" seems ironic because of the lack of Pax in the post Cold War era of America pushing the limits of its
power projection. Maybe a better term would be "Bellus Americana."
Boy, Is This Stupid or What? Did the US allow ISIS to escape to keep the fighting going?
Philip Giraldi November 21, 2017 1,600 Words
Americans have been living in a country that has not known peace since 9/11, when President George W. Bush and his posse of neoconservatives
delivered the message to the world that "you are either with us or against us." The threat was coupled with flurry of hastily conceived
legislation that opened the door to the unconstitutional "war on terror" carried out at the whim of the Chief Executive, a conflict
which was from the start conceived of as a global military engagement without end.
Bush and his handlers might not have realized it at the time but they were initiating a completely new type of warfare. To be
sure, there would be fighting on the ground worldwide against an ideologically driven enemy somewhat reminiscent of communism, but
there would also be included "regime change" of governments in countries that were not completely on board with the direction coming
out of Washington. Instead of invading and occupying a country in the old-fashioned way, so the thinking went, far better to just
knock off the top levels and let the natives sort things out while acting under direction from the pros in Washington.
Even though "regime change" in Iraq and Afghanistan did not work out very well, Bush saw himself as a triumphant war leader with
his vainglorious "Mission Accomplished," and he later dubbed himself the "decider." He insisted that his reelection in 2004 when
running against a weak John Kerry was a validation of his policies by the American people, but one has to wonder how many voters
really understood that they were signing on for perpetual war that would of necessity also diminish their most cherished liberties.
Nobel Peace Prize winner and U.S. President Barack Obama followed Bush and made it clear that there would be no stepping back
from a policy of proactively "protecting" the American people. Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton destroyed Libya,
a disaster that is still playing out, increased involvement in Syria, and introduced death by drone for both American citizens who
have transgressed and random foreigners who fit a profile. And to eliminate any pushback to what he was doing, Obama relied on invoking
the state secrets privilege to block legal challenges more times than all his predecessors in office combined.
And now we have President Donald Trump, whose foreign policy is particularly unarticulated, though in many ways similar to that
of his predecessors. The United States is increasing its involvement in Afghanistan, where it has been engaged for longer than in
any previous war, is threatening both Iran and North Korea with annihilation, and is hopelessly entangled in Trump's pledge to completely
eliminate ISIS. Indeed, destroying ISIS (and al-Qaeda) has been the one clearly articulated part of the Trump foreign policy, though
there are also occasional assertions that it should be accompanied by yet one more try at regime change in Damascus.
And the grand tradition of using military might to back up diplomacy has certainly found little favor, so much so that it is
certainly
clear even to the supine American public and a risk averse congress that there is something wrong in Foggy Bottom. It is astonishing
to note the mainstream media, which reviled George W. Bush when he was in office, describing him currently as a voice of moderation
and restraint due to his recent criticism of the White House. You can't go wrong if you pile on Trump.
Even the U.S. media has been reluctantly reporting that ISIS has been rolled back in Syria by the joint efforts of the Syrian
Army and the Russian air force with the United States and its allies playing very much secondary roles in the conflict. The Russians
have, in fact, complained that Washington seemed just a tad disinterested in actually cooperating to destroy the last remnants of
ISIS in the few areas that the group still controls, citing most recently
an alleged incident during the Syrian government liberation of the town of Abu Kamal in which U.S. air assets on site appear
to have allowed ISIS fighters to escape.
The shambles of American policy as it applies to the Middle East was highlighted by yet another similar and particularly bizarre
episode that was revealed initially
by the BBC on Monday of last week. In early October, when the Syrians and Russians were closing in from the west on Raqqa, the "capital"
of the ISIS caliphate while the U.S supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which predominantly consists of the Kurdish militias,
was closing in from the east, a deal was reportedly struck to permit an evacuation of the remaining ISIS fighters and their families.
According to the BBC investigative report
, the SDF and Kurds were wary of clearing out the remaining fighters from the ruins of the city and so negotiated an agreement whereby
the ISIS fighters from Syria and Iraq and their families would be able to leave and be allowed to either go home and face the consequences
or proceed to ISIS controlled areas about one hundred miles away. The objective was to avoid a final assault from the air and using
artillery that would have produced a bloodbath killing thousands, including large numbers of civilians. The agreement stipulated
that only ISIS fighters who were local would be allowed to leave. Others, referred to as "foreigners," from Europe, Africa or Asia
would have to surrender in order to avoid their going free and getting involved in new terrorist activity after returning home.
U.S. and British military advisers who were with the SDF and Kurds reported, somewhat improbably, that they had not been party
to the negotiations, that it was "all-locals," though they later admitted that there had been some involvement on their part. In
the event, trucks and busses were assembled on October 14 th , formed into a convoy, and were loaded with more than 4,000
fighters and families. More than 100 ISIS-owned vehicles also were allowed to leave and there were ten trucks filled with weapons.
The convoy stretched for more than four miles and film footage shows trucks pulling trailers filled with militants brandishing their
weapons. The fighters were not allowed to display flags or banners but they were not forced to disarm and in fact loaded all the
vehicles with as many weapons as they could carry, so much so that one truck broke its axle from the weight. The BBC reported that
"This wasn't so much an evacuation – it was the exodus of so-called Islamic State."
The drivers reported that they were abused by the ISIS fighters, many of whom were wearing explosive belts, and they also claimed
that there was a large percentage of foreigners among those escaping. Various drivers told the BBC that there were French, Turkish,
Azerbaijani, Pakistani, Yemeni, Saudi, Chinese, Tunisian and Egyptian nationals among their passengers. The evacuees made it safely
to ISIS controlled territory and presumably will be ready, willing and able to fight again.
The escape of the Islamic State from Raqqa is, to put it mildly, bizarre. One might accept that avoiding the carnage that would
have been part and parcel of an assault on the shattered city should have weighed heavily on the decision making by the attacking
forces, but allowing hardened fighters to escape with their weapons would hardly seem a good way to end the conflict. In May, U.S.
Defense Secretary James Mattis said on television that the war against ISIS was one of " annihilation. Our intention is that the
foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to north Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa. We are not going
to allow them to do so."
Well, Mattis was possibly lying back then, or at least saying what he thought would play well on television and in the newspapers.
On November 14 th , the day after the BBC story about Raqqa broke, he lied again,
saying that the United States is in Syria under a U.N. authorization to fight ISIS, which is not true. The Russians have been
invited into the country by its legitimate government but the U.S. is not there legally. The Turks are claiming that there are 13
U.S. military bases already in Syria, some of which are permanent.
Mattis added to his bit of fiction
by stating , somewhat ominously, that while the first phase of the ISIS war is coming to an end "Basically we can go after ISIS.
And we're there to take them out. But that doesn't mean we just walk away and let ISIS 2.0 pop back around. The enemy hasn't declared
they're done with the war yet. So, we'll keep fighting them as long as they want to fight."
A waggish friend of mine suggested that Mattis might be deliberately selectively releasing ISIS fighters so the U.S. will never
have to leave Syria, but my own theory is somewhat different. I think that Washington, which has done so little to defeat ISIS, wants
some threat to continue so it can keep its own "resistance forces" in place and active to give it a seat at the table and a voice
at the upcoming Geneva discussions for a political settlement in Syria. Otherwise Washington will be outside looking in. The unspeakable
Nikki Haley at the U.N. appears to endorse that line of thinking
by asserting that Washington will continue
"to fight for justice" in Syria no matter what the rest of the world decides to do.
Does this mean that we can expect considerable fumbling and a game with no exit strategy, something like a replay of Afghanistan,
Iraq and Libya? You betcha.
Another great article, Phil! I hope those jerks at TAC with their rapidly declining readership are realizing how idiotic it was
to fire you.
Your waggish friend may have a point, but there are several parties that would benefit from the continuing conflict in that
region:
– Arms manufacturers lose money in times of peace, so the MIC is clearly an important beneficiary.
- Israel benefits as long as there is chaos in the Middle East and no unification of its enemies. It also benefits by keeping
the boogeyman alive so that it can continue to siphon off our largesse in terms of military aid "to defend itself".
- The US government benefits by continuing to have a reason to be there in order to thwart Russia's growing influence in the region.
- The Russians benefit by continuing to demonstrate their military prowess and gaining both allies in the region as well as customers
for their advanced weaponry.
Who doesn't benefit?
- We and our fellow citizens don't, as our taxes continue to fund this mayhem while our own economy and our standard of living
plummets (except for the elite).
- The people of that region continue to live their lives in hell without any normalcy, and so see no benefits.
- The European countries become hosts to the tide of refugees escaping from the region, mixed with enough mischief makers to increase
social tension in major European cities, so the Europeans don't benefit.
Wouldn't it be great if we could get rid of our war-mongering interventionists, fueled by Israel-firsters, and gain influence
in the world as China does, by focusing on trade instead of wars? Couldn't we just buy the resources we need as China does, rather
than stealing them by force from others?
Couldn't we, once more, become manufacturers and traders, rather than mercenaries for Israel? That would Make America Great
Again .
As long the axis of evil consisting of "the most moral and exceptional nation," "the nation with the best and moral army," and
"the nation of corruption fighters" continues to dominate the world scene the Muslim blood will continue to be spilt. I could
have never imagined that the United States will lose every fiber of decency and morality for the sake of few AIPAC dollars.
The American public is brain dead. If you repeat lies enough times they become the truth and the American public will swallow
it hook-line and sinker.
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
Syrian President Assad gassed his people
US is in Syria by UN consent
US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia/UAE are fighting terrorism
Iran has nuclear weapons
These are few of the lies that have been told by our politicians and the MSM. Just ask any average American and he will tell
you that yes these are true statements. As long as the present state of affairs continues the mayhem in the Middle East will continue.
I am not at all surprised that the US and her allies helped escape ISIS fighters. Remember that ISIS, AL-Qaeda and all the
other alphabet fighters were created by the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. These three have to protect their investment of man-power
and weapons to be used some other place. In Fourteen years, ISIS or Al-Qaeda has never attacked Israel. Coincidence? Hmmmm.
How do we stop it? The only way to end this slaughter of innocent Muslims is by eliminating every zionist/neocon from the face
of this earth. As long as even one zionist/neocon remains he will sprout up evereywhere and continue this corruption. And, please
spare me the indignation at my calling Muslims "innocent." Before the Palestinian issue there were no hijackings, kidnappings,
or killings of non-Muslim by Muslims. This started when the benevolent Western nations got rid of the Jews from the Europe and
put them in the Middle east.
Does this mean that we can expect considerable fumbling and a game with no exit strategy, something like a replay of Afghanistan,
Iraq and Libya?
IS in my opinion is an idea, the idea that western neocolonialism cannot be accepted.
One cannot contain ideas, moreover, as Keynes already understood, 'ideas are the most powerful forces in the world'.
There is a british expression, what confirms this, I think, 'one can do a lot with bayonets, except sit on them'.
So indeed, the USA industrial military complex, against which Eisenhower in his farewell speech already warned, may welcome an
ongoing war.
The USA taxpayer pays with money, low income USA citizens also pay with blood and disabilities.
This article is based on a false premise – that the USA is an enemy of ISIS and al-Qaeda etc. That is nonsense.
Here is the ex-prime minister of Qatar – an ally of the USA – and one of the richest men in the world admitting that the USA
and its allies (including Qatar) created, trained, equipped and financed the terrorists in Syria.
A few days ago, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Qatar Hamad Bin Jassim in an interview with the BBC announced
that his country had been providing all sorts of assistance to the armed opposition groups in Syria through Turkey for years.
At the same time, Doha wasn't alone to show its supports to anti-Assad forces, as it was joined by the United States, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, the UAE and Turkey itself. All this began back in 2007 after Israel suffered a humiliating defeat in South
Lebanon, while being unable to overcome Hezbollah's resistance in 2006. According to the former Qatari Prime Minister, Qatar
was in charge of the so-called "Syrian Dossier" on behalf of the US and Saudi Arabia, adding that he had access to both American
and Saudi paperwork on the staging of a so-called "Syrian civil war."
"Revelations of a High-Profile Qatari Official Reveal a Wider anti-Syria Conspiracy"
300 ISIS thugs moved by the USAF and the CIA into Europe, maybe even the USA, where they can be counted on to be used as patsy's
for a decades worth of False Flags, or maybe even let them do the killing and terrorizing, since they have experience in murdering
women and children in Syria and Iraq.
This is the USG at work, setting up terrorist networks in Syria and Iraq and paying the Taliban off in Afghanistan so they
can have an excuse to keep that phony war going, in order to keep US troops there guarding those poppy fields which those TBTF
Wall Street banks need so they can launder the illegal drug profits and stay afloat.
Now that the Zionists Yinon Project in Syria has failed, looks like Israel will have to use other intrigues to keep its theft
of Syrian and Lebanese land vital and ongoing.
The real terrorist isn't some guy shouting Allahu Akbar™ and detonating his suicide vest or driving his truck into people,
it's the scuzzy POS USG that has become nothing more than a vicious gangster outfit that is using terrorism to scare the hell
out of Americans so we'll keep cowering in fear, while the thieves rob us blind and wreck our economy and nation and get us ever
so closer to a state of complete tyranny.
Yeah I noticed that story and I wonder why the BBC didn't follow up with some pointed questions to the US Defense Department,
'slurpy dog' Mattis et al. Are they all in cahoots??
The unspeakable Nikki Haley
LOL and so true. She is Trump's Hillary Rotten Clinton that Obama disappointedly put in at 'State' 9 years ago. Wow,
9 years time flies!
On a side note Charlie Rose is the latest 'celebrity' to get the 'sexual abuse' ax. I had written a post on The Myth of American
Meritocracy article by Ron Unz just a few days ago pointing out Charlie Rose's connections to CBS, so double LOL!! Charlie being
a crypto Zionist makes his predicament extra special. (Very wide grin)
I wonder if Cheney and Rumsfeld are pleased Bush junior has claimed full credit for all his foreign policy disasters. It would
be nice if Obama gave up his ludicrous Nobel peace prize and instead offered it to Admiral Fallon.
Lets hope those US troops don't go home in body bags, but I am not sure whether there is anyone there to remind Trump of his
commitment that US troops were just there to fight IS.
Nobel Peace Prize winner and U.S. Corporate house negro Barack Obama followed Bush and made it clear that there would be
no stepping back from a policy of proactively "protecting" the American people.
There I fixed it for ya. Do you really think that the owners are going to give what they consider a ni ** er from Chicago any
real power?
It seems that the American "intelligence community" is trying to protect its ISIS forces in order to avoid future problems with
recruitment. If they allowed these ISIS soldiers to be captured or killed, they'd have a hard time putting together another such
army in the future. Even muslim fanatics would have sense enough to know that they were being set up for abandonment and betrayal
should they join the next CIA army in a regime change project..
The Saudis would ally with Satan himself, signing in their own blood, agreeing to give tens of thousands of their poorest children
to Satan for direct use, as well as promising all the Shia and Christian children they could round up, in order to take out the
Assad family and use Syria as Base Camp for the destruction of Iran and Shiite Mohammedanism.
The Israelis want the Assads ousted as much as do the Saudis and are as happy as the Saudis to pervert everything they touch
in order to get the job done.
The Americans look on with parental delight at the two main products of WASP hegemony over the Middle East, handed from the
English to the Yanks.
Sorry to nitpick , PG ,and sorry to be so redundant, but I must once again appeal to authors to quit calling the presstitutes
and cesspool media "mainstream."
It is the voice of plutoligarchs and is in no rational way, mainstream. The term lends an air of credibility to utter trash
when it deserves, instead, to be discredited at every opportunity.
Even muslim fanatics would have sense enough to know that they were being set up for abandonment and betrayal should they
join the next CIA army in a regime change project..
This is the first time I've ever seen that concept in print, but it is as valid as it is obvious. I've often wondered what
motivated people to sign on with the world's most corrupt entities when it's obvious that they are not and probably never have
been reliable or trustworthy partners.
The US betrays its allies, the Arab peoples, just as it betrayed the Philippine freedom fighters (against the Spanish Empire)
20 years previously.:
CAIRO, Egypt, May 27, -- The last hope of 30,000,000 Arabs to win freedom for their race without further bloodshed vanished
when cables from Washington announced that the United States had concluded an agreement with Great Britain The Arabs came into
the war on the side of the allies against their Turkish co-religionists in- response to the allies' promise of freedom The
Arab support" was determined and effective."
Newspaper article by Junius B. Wood on the American recognition of Britain's mandate in Palestine, Chicago Daily News,27
May 1922 (also The Sunday Star, Washington)
All 3 links are worth reading to get a picture of the resources and organization a rather sordid coalition of govts applied
to regime change in Syria, and what their failure may come to mean. Assad stood up against a formidable force, and eventually
outsmarted them by putting together an even smarter coalition.
This piece hits on something some friends and I spoke of years ago. We said then, this ISIS is the neocolonialists new 'moneymaker'.
When ISIS started holding up severed heads they knew they'd found gold or struck oil as they say.
"diminish their most precious liberties". Would you care, PG, to spell out what you mean and why you nominate the particular liberties
you identify as "their most precious".
How many Americans do you think have been materially affected, and care, and how many care even if not affected personally?
Logically, the US would want to keep on good terms with ISIS so as to be able to use it later against Putin in Syria (or Chechnya!).
As always, Putin is the centrepiece of the problem. Ukraine? Syria? Iran? North Korea? No Putin, no problem.
The fact is that ISIS aka AL CIADA was created by the U.S. and Israel and Britain ie the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI 6 to be their
proxy mercenaries to do regime change and this is what they did at a cost of thousands of American servicemen and millions of
civilians dead and over 6 TRILLION dollars pissed away for the benefit of ISRAEL and the Zionist bankers and the Zionist controlled
MIC.
The Zionists control the U.S. and this was proven by the coverup of the attack on the USS LIBERTY and the coverup of ISRAELS
attack on the WORLD TRADE CENTER on 911, there is no end to the hell that Zionist Israel will inflict on America.
The Coalition of Dishonest, US & Israel, are trying to protect their investment, ISIS:
"The Russians have, in fact, complained that Washington seemed just a tad disinterested in actually cooperating to destroy the
last remnants of ISIS in the few areas that the group still controls, citing most recently an alleged incident during the Syrian
government liberation of the town of Abu Kamal in which U.S. air assets on site appear to have allowed ISIS fighters to escape."
The US brass has been exposed as a bunch of liars:
"In May, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis said on television that the war against ISIS was one of " annihilation. Our intention
is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to north Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa.
We are not going to allow them to do so." Well, Mattis was possibly lying back then, or at least saying what he thought would
play well on television and in the newspapers. On November 14th, the day after the BBC story about Raqqa broke, he lied again,
saying that the United States is in Syria under a U.N. authorization to fight ISIS, which is not true."
The US has become an internationally recognize liar and aggressor. Thanks, Israel.
Meanwhile, in Russia: "I'd like to introduce you to the people who played a key part in saving Syria," Putin told Assad as
he introduced the men in green uniforms. "Of course, Mr. Assad knows some of you personally. He told me during our talks today
that thanks to the Russian Army, Syria has been saved as a state." Assad used the opportunity to relay the gratitude of his government
and the Syrian people to those involved in the two-year operation in the war-torn nation. "I would like to underline the effort
made by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, the sacrifices they have made," he said."
https://www.rt.com/news/410467-putin-assad-meet-syria/
You just woke up from hibernation?
US has been using ISIS in Syria for 4-5 years against Assad, and Putin's AF has been chopping the head-choppers to little of chunks
of burnt swine.
Unfortunately the number of ISIS cannibals available for pulverizing by RuAF has greatly diminished lately: just when Russian
AF was getting warmed up, they ran out of juicy ISIS targets.
Whom does the US military really fight against in Syria? – Not the ISIS, for sure.
https://southfront.org/syrian-war-al-bukamal-is-liberated-what-now/
"The at-Tanf area on the Syrian-Iraqi border is controlled by the US-led coalition and a few US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA)
groups. FSA units are concentrated around the US garrison at at-Tanf and in the nearby refugee camp. The US says that it needs
this garrison to fight ISIS while in fact it is just preventing Syria and Iraq from using the Damascus-Baghdad highway as a supply
line. US forces respond with airstrikes and shelling to any Syrian Arab Army (SAA) attempts to reach at-Tanf."
This is a great article, although it would be easier to understand with ✡proper✡ punctuation, e.g., (((posse of neo-cohens))),
(((ISIS))), (((US media))).
Agree.
The Nuremberg Protocols have set the precedent for reparations for the Jews.
Syria has been a victim of the US/Israel/Saudis aggression. Time to pay for the destruction and slaughtered civilians of all ages.
.
It is not so much the US that "want to keep on good terms with ISIS" in Syria. It is the Jewish state that wants Syria to disintegrate.
Have not you heard the Israelis' squealing about "bad Iran?" – Here we are. Israelis/Israel-firsters want to keep the US fighting
for Jewish Lebensraum in the Middle East.
More on the situation in Syria and the phony "war on terror:"
https://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-israeli-friendship-is-driving-the-rest-of-the-middle-east-together/5619176
"Mohammed bin Salman, son of King Salman, began his internal purge of the Kingdom's elite by removing from the line of succession
Bin Nayef, a great friend of the US intelligence establishment (Brennan and Clapper). Bin Nayef was a firm partner of the US deep
state. Saudi Arabia has for years worked for the CIA, advancing US strategic goals in the region and beyond. Thanks to the
cooperation between Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud, Bin Nayef, and US intelligence agencies, Washington has for years given the impression
of fighting against Islamist terrorist while actually weaponizing jihadism since the 1980s by deploying it against rival countries
like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the Iraqi government in 2014, the Syrian state in 2012, and Libya's Gaddafi in 2011
."
Israel's evil schemes and malign influence of Izzie lovers are real enough, but the American people have got to grow up & grow
a pair -- realize that their representatives are themselves corrupt & warmongering for evil, unlawful motives.
Simply the continuation of the US policy of Obama/Clinton under a new administration designed to weaken or remove the Syrian Gov't
for Israel's benefit. The Israelis routinely treat ISIS and al-Qaeda fighters and return them to the battlefield while shelling
the Syrian Arab Army whenever they have an excuse. Same stuff, different day.
Hi PG, great observation. They can't kill all their "hitman thugs", the mass bombing was not done to destroy ISIS, a group that
was created by ZIA, Mossad, and Wahabi thugs to destroy the ME, kill as many Muslim civilians and others, and send the rest packing
to Europe, while keeping the "fake war on terror " alive and kicking. Russia and Iran have put their noses in a " well thought
plan", spoilers that have to be dealt with. But their hands can only reach Iran , except it might burn.
Letting ISIS go unmolested is one proof they are in cahoots
Anyone announcing, "ISIS is our greatest threat " and calling those helping get rid of this threat as a "threat ", that's a definite
suspect.
ISIS is only continuing the 9/11 narrative. Iran and Russia have to be stopped at any cost, the Zionists have to fulfill their
dreams .
An idea that the Christian West will exorcise itself from Judenevil, is simply not rooted in reality. See what happened with
Christian Italy's opposition to BDS, a moral cause, clearly a Juden vs Muslim cause.
The Christian West fears Islam the most, not as a nations conquering power, but as a spiritual mind conquering power, given
Islam's undeniable focus on true monotheism an ideological power which Christendom finds itself impotent against, given it own
foundations in pagan polytheism.
Even if we agree that Europeans for the most part will never accept true monotheism, but would rather wallow in the godlessness
of Atheism, Gnosticism, or whatever, as is happening now, the fact that by numbers alone Christianity would play second fiddle
to Islam, would be psychologically crushing to the supremacist West, a culture which prides its glory on its Christian faith.
The Christian West has no such fear of Judenism, the exclusive membership cult , even if Juden faithful clearly revile
their "deity," and his holy mother, herself a perceived "deity," no less. Your nations will always keep Judens close (sure, preferably
not inside), because that cult will always remain the implacable enemies of Islam (you know, enemy of my enemy, and all).
So, why does the Christian West fear Islam's consistent message of True Monotheism? Because, I believe most Christians know
that at its core, their faith is simply, Polytheism.
" I think that Washington, which has done so little to defeat ISIS, wants some threat to continue so it can keep its own "resistance
forces" in place and active to give it a seat at the table and a voice at the upcoming Geneva discussions for a political settlement
in Syria.">>
You are 100% Philip.
And Isr'merica has to keep terriers alive and well to continue 'the threat' to civilization.
Jews or Jewish "converts" in the thousands from France and other European countries have joined ISIS, which should tell you all
there is to know about ISIS. Only reason for a Muslim to join ISIS is if they are a government agent of a Western or West-supported
puppet country . any other type of Muslim joining this CIA created bullshit called "isis" is just plain a hopeless fool
We're probably now in a permanent state of war, until we go the way of the USSR. With fewer and fewer civilian peacetime jobs
that actually pay the rent available, the MIMC (Military-Industrial-Media Complex) is the only thing keeping the economy from
flatlining. As others have pointed out, cui bono? Read Kevin Phillips' House of Bush, House of Saud for some background. You can
bet the Bush family is making money off of it.
I think you are making this far too intellectual. I don't think many people operate at this level.
The reason why most people in the West fear Islam is likely because too many Muslims have done a piss-poor job in becoming
boons for their host countries and too many act like jack-asses (and dangerous ones at that).
Our community needs to do some serious self-reflection and reign in some of the idiot youth we have running around before we
start taking it up to the level of debate about theological points. Nobody's going to listen to you debate Trinitarianism if they
are afraid you're looking to steal their lunch money.
the goal is to mess syria up, just like libya, iraq and all the other countries in the ME. for the 17 years of continuous wars
waged by the us, the ME will take at least a few decades just to recover to pre 2003 lvls. and the 17 years isn't the end. this
will continue. turkey almost got taken over in a us backed insurrection. when russia got involved in syria, that wasn't just a
wrench in the american planning cogs, that was like a wrecking ball.
when I look at pictures and videos of the devastation, I get the feeling we are evil as fuck as a country.
ps: look at yemen. that is a proxi war too by using SA. all the deaths in that country is also on us.
It's not or what, Phil. It's incorrigible stupidity.
When the US Government playmaker is an amalgam of the Quiet and the Ugly American and has charged himself with 'doing something
about' changing political and social conditions in a country he knows nothing about, considers himself too superior to learn anything
about, and knows that he personally will be immune from the consequences of failure, decapitation as a policy comes readily and
easily to his mind: Ngo Dinh Diem; Saddam Hussein; Muammar Qaddafi. Sometimes when decapitation seems to be not immediately practicable,
he takes out an option on the future with mere demonization: Assad; of course Putin; countless others.
But this has to be on Trump. Russia, China and the far east, the Middle East are now policy realities that are unfolding on his
watch. He entered office without political friends and surrounded himself with generals and family whose only favorable qualification
is that they are not generals: the very predictable results have not been impressive. I can only surmise that the execrable Nikki
Haley holds a chip against her firing. The woman cannot open her mouth without causing real fear that there is literally no reasonable
person in our entire foreign policy apparatus who is holding the reins.
The trajectory does not look good. If there is someone out there who could point to a calamity averting firewall in this Administration,
a George Schultz, a Jim Baker, just somebody who is recognizably adult, stable and sane and is not a general, I would very much
like to know who it is. I would sleep better.
Israeli parasite:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/11/httpssouthfrontorgisraels-military-expenditures-and-military-industrial-complex-overview-and-dynamics.html
"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."
From Sic Semper Tyrannis: http://turcopolier.typepad.com
" what's theirs [Israelis] is theirs, and what's yours is theirs as well. 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? 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."
– In short, Israelis are cheaters and thieves and no friends to the US; they are just parasites.
Agree with Talha that you are over thinking the situation. Wouldn't have used the Maslow thing, but no matter --
imo religion-theology-sectarian conflict are at the bottom of barrel in explaining the wars.
Muslims are pissed at USA/West because USA/WEST INVADED them & killed their people. It's not much more complicated then that.
It is hideous that Islam is demonized and Muslims made the fall guy -- that is a specialty of Jews–drumming up gut-level hate.
Other cultures use propaganda in war -- Romans did,Napoleon was a master propagandist.
But Jews (no, not Nazis/ Goebbels but Jews)own the franchise on ginning up hate.
In the '60s and '70s US universities overflowed with Iranian Paki Indian grad students. It was a dynamic time. Now Jews are
all over our best universities & it"s ugly.
But my original point was, American citizens have to take responsibility for the CRIMES of their leaders.
Pretty sure the people of spain would disagree with "Before the Palestinian issue there were no hijackings, kidnappings, or
killings of non-Muslim by Muslims. This started when the benevolent Western nations got rid of the Jews from the Europe and put
them in the Middle east." the crusades werent just Christians fighting Muslims, muslims pushed back and did more damage then the
european Christians did.
It is the mainstream tho. We know it is bullshit, but its still the main "news" outlet. They controll the narrative, and they
have the majority of listeners/watchers. That makes them mainstream.
Mainstream doesn't have to mean "good", "honest" or "accurate", just popular and widely consumed.
You have a high opinion of westerners. Most are too dumb or busy to even look at the differences between islam and whatever
the west believes.
If all peoples would just abandon the religions of their grandfathers and take responsibility for their actions in life (instead
of taking a back seat and allowing a mythical "judge" to have a say after death), this planet would be a better place.
Most people agree that kindness, decency and respect are the cornerstones of all the moral principles that religions impose
on their followers. So why do we need the mythical stories and outdated traditions to be good?
"These are few of the lies that have been told by our politicians and the MSM. Just ask any average American and he will
tell you that yes these are true statements."
-- MEexpert
MEexpert must not live in USA. If you ask "any average American" who lives in this country about such things, he will probably
mutter a perfunctory "yeah, right," and then walk away from you, thinking to himself, "ay-ho", meaning "AH".
Percentage of Americans with any confidence in Congress? Maybe just barely in double digits, and maybe not. Same for MSM oh,
sure, some people still have their favorite TV news channel, but that's only because talking heads can't say often enough that
it's all BS, present company excepted and anyway very few people watch any TV news. Those that do are partisan and get told by
their favorite talking head exactly what they think they want to hear.
So if you ask a guy if Iran has nukes, he'll likely say, "Yeah, sure" but he will actually be remembering that it came out
a few years ago that Iran had no WMDs. And then if you ask, "Iran and Iraq: they're the same country, aren't they?" he'll likely
say, "Yeah, sure." And now with Iraq having a Shiite government, that'll be pretty much true see how that works .. like a stopped
clock just give it some time and it will be accurate, at least for a while. But if you would wind up the clock, it would still
work, it's just that nobody winds anything up any more . it's all battery powered .or maybe solar
"Braindead"? It's more like parts of the brain have been put to sleep. Those parts can be woke in an election year to temporarily
take some interest, but now that the election is old news, we return to the basic truth: "nobody cares."
Politics? Don't ask, don't tell -- that's the policy of Joe Sixpack. Sally Sixpack? "Trump is a serial groper, it's disgusting."
To which, Joe says, "Yeah sure."
Americans are practical people. A lot of guys, if you get to where you are exposing the whole rotten system, they'll say, "Well,
let me know where we're going to form up, and I'll grab a couple of my guns and meet you there."
First, we should redirect the hefty allowance for Israel to the restoration of Syria.
Meanwhile, Israel continues protecting ISIS and invading Syria:
http://thesaker.is/syrian-war-report-november-20-2017-government-troops-liberated-al-bukamal-from-isis/
"In southern Syria, the SAA entered into the villages of Kafr Hawar, Bayt Sabir, Baytima and established control over them. HTS
militants had withdrawn from the area thanks to the SAA actions and protests of the locals. Israel responded to the SAA operations
with two shelling incidents from its battle tanks. The first took place on November 18. The second was reported on November 20.
The SAA suffered no casualties. Tel Aviv is upset that the Syrian government is restoring control over the areas previously seized
by militants."
Must assert what the American-Israeli military did with ISIS is far from "stupid."
Such action was practical.
Copying the genius of Henry Ford, the leftover ISIS remnant is become interchangeable parts which can get readily reactivated
within the next popularized wave of "Radical Islam" which will likely appear in order to wage merciless war , uh on Lebanon.
I am figuring (brand name) al-Qaeda will soon get a curtain call.
The US betrays its allies because that is what the English did. Palmerston may have expressed it best: "We have no eternal
allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
"Pretty sure the people of spain would disagree with "Before the Palestinian issue there were no hijackings, kidnappings, or
killings of non-Muslim by Muslims."
You should carefully validate your historical ' facts ', especially when describing "hijackings, kidnappings, or killings
of non-Muslim", in Spain after the Islamic 'Moorish' conquest; try Douglas Reed "The Controversy of Zion" p.89 ish at:
https://archive.org/details/TheControversyOfZion
You will see how events of our current era from 1800, follow a pattern traceable for 25 centuries.
Christianity is Trinitarianism. Mohammedanism is a Gnostic heresy of both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, mixed together
with some nicely disguised aspects of Arabic paganism.
The purpose of ISIS was to provide a rationale for the reestablishment of US/NATO permanent military bases in Iraq and also Syria.
Statements made during the year or so after ISIS appeared and before Russia's intervention in 2015 consistently referred to a
"30 year" time period required by US/NATO forces to ultimately defeat ISIS. During that year, US/NATO never attempted to disrupt
ISIS' supply lines or interdict the Gulf States' funding of the group, all the while the Western media was constantly publishing
ISIS atrocity videos and politicians were claiming the fight against ISIS was the most important struggle of all.
In my opinion, the sudden release of Syrian refugees into Europe in September 2015, after they had been warehoused in Turkey
until that moment, was meant to serve as a manufactured crisis which would lead to the insertion of a large US/NATO force into
Iraq and Syria with both a "humanitarian" pretext and the fight against ISIS, leading to military bases,Syrian regime change,
and probably from there the targeting of Hezbollah and later Iran. Russia's sudden intervention prevented this scenario from playing
out.
Yes, there's a long history of this kind of betrayal by the US government. I can only guess that Saudi agents ran the front
end of the recruitment of ISIS. Otherwise it's a little hard to feature so many of these foot soldiers coming to join the mission.
The game (and perceived necessity) is to block China.
Draw a horizontal line from the Chinese population centers below Beijing westward and you go through the "stans," Iran, under
the Caspian Sea, and finally to Syria. This will be the the One Belt, One Road, the new Silk Road, etc., with rails, pipelines
and what not.
It is no accident that the action is near the western terminus of that line. If implemented, future world dominance could be
achieved.
Thanks for this article; it seems to show the activities of the war profiteers; those who own shares in the armament industries,
and those who loan money to countries to pay these armament indusries. They are probably the same group of people. Perpetual war
as a business model.
The early photos of Isis on the move showed them in shiny new white Toyota pickups. Looks like they've learned to camouflage them.
Sinister and brilliant.
Uh , practical "Muslim fanatics" need to find work too!
Does the official 9/11 report claim that the hijackers got help from the Saud royals?
(Zigh) Who the hell really knows who were Mohammed Atta's alleged handlers in Hamburg, Germany?
At the time, Germany was host to five-star military bases under leftover WW II treaties. Hm. Where were CIA and Mossad HQ'
s located in Hamburg.
(Zigh) Even lookalike Mohammed Atta' s must had difficulty in figuring out exactly who wanted to employ them.
Can one imagine a washed-up ISIS warrior somehow gaining entry into uh, say Scranton, and undergoing a "dream" terror-job search?
(Zigh) Joining up would depend upon (up front) receipt of a "sign-on" bonus check that did not bounce. (Zigh)
Pardon my cynicism, and thanks Twodees Partain for the solid thinking!
"I have taken more than 400 American security professionals – primarily retired American Admirals and Generals – to Israel
in more than 30 trips. And at the other end of their careers, I have sent more than 500 cadets and midshipmen of our service academies
to Israel before they received their commissions. I never found one that didn't believe in the relationship between Jews and the
land of Israel. The United States military, then, is a Zionist institution ."
Rejoyce, Americans -- Israel-firsters are satisfied with your brass.
Still, using the term legitimizes it somewhat more than it deserves. And it supports the agendas of the plutoligarchs and they
are not mainstream by any means.
The surviving jihadists are pretty much stateless; there's no going back to their home countries now. The promised caliphate they
expected to live in didn't materialize. They are now totally dependent on whoever is willing to shelter them which makes them
a useful commodity for the US. They can be held on the back burner until the next project comes along. There's all sorts of countries
that could become the next target should they refuse to capitulate to US demands. They're all probably being secreted in various
places awaiting a call.
It's a mistaken notion that the US is against radical Islam. On the contrary it not only wants it but tries to create it. Look
at it's assembling of zealots to fight in Afghanistan against the Russians and the use of them against secular nationalist in
Islamic areas. ISIS fanatics are deluded cannon-fodder, not realizing they're just furthering US aims, the US working through
various fronts so as to hide the actual authorship of what's taking place.
Americans have been living in a country that has not known peace since 9/11,
This is simply not true. War has not happened in the USA since the American Civil War 160 years ago. All wars the American
military fought since then are fought in somebody else homeland, those wars to the Americans are just some kind of odd news competing
eyeballs with pro sport news, celebrity gossips, gun violence or commercials, if they did not read it, those wars never happen,
never heard of it, and it is out of sight and out of mind, the wars have nothing to do with them. The USA itself is all peaceful
other than occasional gun violence.
"... Porter's research indicates very strongly that the building that was bombed could not have been a nuclear reactor – and that
was clear to experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even as the story was being promoted uncritically across the western
media. ..."
"... But Porter helps shine a light on how even the most reputable international agencies can end up similarly following a script
written in Washington and one that rides roughshod over evidence, especially when the interests of the world's only superpower are at
stake. In this case, the deceptions were perpetuated by one of the world's leading scientific organizations: the International Atomic
Energy Agency, which monitors states' nuclear activities. ..."
"... The Syrian "nuclear plant", he noted, could not have been built using North Korean know-how, as was claimed by the US. It lacked
all the main features of a North Korean gas-cooled reactor. The photos produced by the Israelis showed a building that, among other
things, covered too small an area and was not anywhere near high enough, it had none of the necessary supporting structures, and there
was no cooling tower. ..."
"... Abushady's assessment was buried by the IAEA, which preferred to let the CIA and the Israelis promote their narrative unchallenged.
..."
"... This was not a one-off failure. In summer 2008, the IAEA visited the area to collect samples. Had the site been a nuclear plant,
they could have expected to find nuclear-grade graphite particles everywhere. They found none. Nonetheless, the IAEA again perpetrated
a deception to try to prop up the fictitious US-Israeli narrative. ..."
Investigative journalist Gareth Porter
has published two exclusives
whose import is far greater than may be immediately apparent. They concern Israel's bombing in 2007 of a supposed nuclear plant secretly
built, according to a self-serving US and Israeli narrative, by Syrian leader Bashar Assad.
Although the attack on the "nuclear reactor" occurred a decade ago, there are pressing lessons to be learnt for those analyzing
current events in Syria.
Porter's research indicates very strongly that the building that was bombed could not have been a nuclear reactor – and that
was clear to experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even as the story was being promoted uncritically across the
western media.
But – and this is the critical information Porter conveys – the IAEA failed to disclose the fact that it was certain the building
was not a nuclear plant, allowing the fabricated narrative to be spread unchallenged. It abandoned science to bow instead to political
expediency.
The promotion of the bogus story of a nuclear reactor by Israel and key figures in the Bush administration was designed to provide
the pretext for an attack on Assad. That, it was hoped, would bring an end to his presidency and drag into the fray the main target
– Iran. The Syrian "nuclear reactor" was supposed to be a rerun of the WMD deception, used in 2003 to oust another enemy of the US
and Israel's – Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
It is noteworthy that the fabricated evidence for a nuclear reactor occurred in 2007, a year after Israel's failure to defeat
Hizbullah in Lebanon. The 2006 Lebanon war was itself intended to spread to Syria and lead to Assad's overthrow, as I explained in
my book Israel and the Clash
of Civilisations .
It is important to remember that this Israeli-neocon plot against Syria long predated – in fact, in many ways prefigured – the
civil war in 2011 that quickly morphed into a proxy war in which the US became a key, if mostly covert, actor.
The left's Witchfinder General
The relevance of the nuclear reactor deception can be understood in relation to the latest efforts by Guardian columnist George
Monbiot (and many others) to discredit prominent figures on the left, including Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, for their caution in
making assessments of much more recent events in Syria. Monbiot has attacked them for not joining him in simply assuming that Assad
was responsible for a sarin gas attack last April on Khan Sheikhoun, an al-Qaeda stronghold in Idlib province.
Understandably, many on the left have been instinctively wary of rushing to judgment about individual incidents in the Syrian
war, and the narratives presented in the western media. The claim that Assad's government used chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun,
and earlier in Ghouta, was an obvious boon to those who have spent more than a decade trying to achieve regime change in Syria.
In what has become an ugly habit with Monbiot, and one I have noted before, he has enthusiastically adopted the role of Witchfinder
General. Any questioning of evidence, skepticism or simply signs of open-mindedness are enough apparently to justify accusations
that one is an Assadist or conspiracy theorist. Giving house room to the doubts of a ballistics expert like Ted Postol of MIT, or
an experienced international arms expert like Scott Ritter, or a famous investigative journalist like Seymour Hersh, or a former
CIA analyst like Ray McGovern, is apparently proof that one is an atrocity denier or worse.
Inconvenient facts buried
Monbiot's latest attack was launched at a moment when he obviously felt he was on solid ground. A UN agency, the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), issued a report last month concluding that the 100 people killed and 200 injured
in Khan Sheikhoun last April were exposed to sarin. Monbiot argues that the proof is now incontrovertible that Assad was responsible
– a position that he, of course, adopted at the outset – and that all other theories have now been decisively
discounted by the OPCW
.
There are reasons to think that Monbiot is seriously misrepresenting the strength of the OPCW's findings, as several commentators
have observed. Most notably, Robert Parry, another leading investigative journalist, points out that evidence in the report's annex
– the place where inconvenient facts are often buried – appears to blow a large hole in the official story.
Parry notes that
the time recorded by the UN of the photo of the chemical weapons attack is more than half an hour after some 100 victims had
already been admitted to five different hospitals, some of them lengthy drives from the alleged impact site.
But potentially more significant than such troubling inconsistencies are the conclusions of Gareth Porter's separate investigation
into Israel's bombing of the nonexistent Syrian nuclear reactor. That gets to the heart of where Monbiot and many others have gone
badly wrong in their certainty about events in Syria.
Extreme naivety
Monbiot has been only too willing to promote as indisputable fact claims made both by highly compromised and unreliable western
sources and by supposedly reputable and independent organizations, such as international human rights groups and UN agencies. He,
like many others, assumes that the latter can always be relied upon to stand apart from western interests and can therefore be implicitly
trusted.
That indicates an extreme naivety or possibly the lack of any experience covering on the ground highly charged conflicts in which
western interests are paramount.
I have been based in Israel for nearly two decades and have on several occasions taken to task Human Rights Watch (HRW), one of
the world's most esteemed human rights organizations.
I have shown that assessments it has made were patently not rooted in evidence or even credible interpretations of international
law but in geopolitical considerations. That was especially true in the case of the month-long fighting between Israel and Hizbullah
in 2006. (See here
and here .) My concerns
about HRW's work, I later learnt from insiders, were shared in its New York head office, but were silenced by the organization's
most senior staff.
Nuclear plant deception
But Porter helps shine a light on how even the most reputable international agencies can end up similarly following a script
written in Washington and one that rides roughshod over evidence, especially when the interests of the world's only superpower are
at stake. In this case, the deceptions were perpetuated by one of the world's leading scientific organizations: the International
Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors states' nuclear activities.
Porter reveals that
Yousry Abushady, the IAEA's foremost expert on North Korean nuclear reactors, was able immediately to discount the aerial photographic
evidence that the building Israel bombed in 2007 was a nuclear reactor. (Most likely it was a disused missile storage depot.)
The Syrian "nuclear plant", he noted, could not have been built using North Korean know-how, as was claimed by the US. It
lacked all the main features of a North Korean gas-cooled reactor. The photos produced by the Israelis showed a building that, among
other things, covered too small an area and was not anywhere near high enough, it had none of the necessary supporting structures,
and there was no cooling tower.
Abushady's assessment was buried by the IAEA, which preferred to let the CIA and the Israelis promote their narrative unchallenged.
Atomic agency's silence
This was not a one-off failure. In summer 2008, the IAEA visited the area to collect samples. Had the site been a nuclear
plant, they could have expected to find nuclear-grade graphite particles everywhere. They found none. Nonetheless, the IAEA again
perpetrated a deception to try to prop up the fictitious US-Israeli narrative.
As was routine, they sent the samples to a variety of laboratories for analysis. None found evidence of any nuclear contamination
– apart from one. It identified particles of man-made uranium. The IAEA issued a report giving prominence to this anomalous sample,
even though in doing so it violated its own protocols,
reports Parry . It could draw
such a conclusion only if the results of all the samples matched.
In fact, as one of the three IAEA inspectors who had been present at the site later reported, the sample of uranium did not come
from the plant itself, which was clean, but from a changing room nearby. A former IAEA senior inspector, Robert Kelley, told Parry
that a "very likely explanation" was that the uranium particles derived from "cross contamination" from clothing worn by the inspectors.
This is a problem that had been previously noted by the IAEA in other contexts.
Meanwhile, the IAEA remained silent about its failure to find nuclear-grade graphite in a further nine reports over two years.
It referred to this critical issue for the first time in 2011.
Chance for war with Iran
In other words, the IAEA knowingly conspired in a fictitious, entirely nonscientific assessment of the Syrian "nuclear reactor"
story, one that neatly served US-Israeli geopolitical interests.
Porter notes that
vice-president Dick Cheney "hoped to use the alleged reactor to get President George W Bush to initiate US airstrikes in Syria in
the hope of shaking the Syrian-Iranian alliance".
In fact, Cheney wanted far more sites in Syria hit than the bogus nuclear plant. In his memoirs, the then-secretary of defense,
Robert Gates, observed that Cheney was "looking for an opportunity to provoke a war with Iran".
The Bush administration wanted to find a way to unseat Assad, crush Hizbullah in Lebanon, and isolate and weaken Iran as a way
to destroy the so-called "Shia crescent".
That goal is being actively pursued again by the US today, with Israel and Saudi Arabia leading the way. A former US ambassador
to Israel, Dan Shapiro, recently warned that , after
their failure to bring down Assad, the Saudis have been trying to switch battlefields to Lebanon, hoping to foment a confrontation
between Israel and Hizbullah that would drag in Iran.
Abandoning science
Back in 2007, the IAEA, an agency of scientists, did its bit to assist – or at least not obstruct – US efforts to foster a political
case, an entirely unjustified one, for military action against Syria and, very possibly by extension, Iran.
If the IAEA could so abandon its remit and the cause of science to help play politics on behalf of the US, what leads Monbiot
to assume that the OPCW, an even more politicized body, is doing any better today?
That is not to say Assad, or at least sections of the Syrian government, could not have carried out the attack on Khan Sheikhoun.
But it is to argue that in a matter like this one, where so much is at stake, the evidence must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny,
and that critics, especially experts who offer counter-evidence, must be given a fair hearing by the left. It is to argue that, when
the case against Assad fits so neatly a long-standing and self-serving western narrative, a default position of skepticism is fully
justified. It is to argue that facts, strong as they may seem, can be manipulated even by expert bodies, and therefore due weight
needs also to be given to context – including an assessment of motives.
This is not "denialism", as Monbiot claims. It is a rational strategy adopted by those who object to being railroaded once again
– as they were in Iraq and Libya – into catastrophic regime change operations.
Meanwhile, the decision by Monbiot and others to bury their heads in the sands of an official narrative, all the while denouncing
anyone who seeks to lift theirs out for a better view, should be understood for what it is: an abnegation of intellectual and moral
responsibility for those around the globe who continue to be the victims of western military supremacism.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human
Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
Just imagine what songs Bandar Bush is singing in "the Ritz" these days. Want to sue Saudi
Arabia for money because of 9/11? No problem, judge. Here are the names, here are the
numbers, and here are the facts.
Disagree regarding multipolar order. The super structures for Globalism are untouched in
all this theatrical displays. All parties seem to participate actively in key Globalist
institutions.
Petrodollar is not and was never a component of NWO. It was an instrument of American
supremacy. There are no planned superpowers in the NWO vision. Only Super-Institutions
.
0 1Interesting that America claims to care about Arab children, while it recently killed over 150 civilians in Iraq.
7 8Why must Assad be stopped he is fighting the same demented loonies who have done attacks all over Europe, including the UK. Are you saying its ok for us to kill these loonies but not Syria.Get real.55 56Using gas was a terrorist attack, not a military one.
8 9It probably was.42 43Are we sure it wasn't the so called rebels? It would make no sense for Assad to do this now. Who financed the whole coup in the first place arming the 'rebels'? They are responsible for the whole mess.27 28Yes, Syrian and Russian forces are striking ISIS, Al-Queda and Al-Nusra, while the US strikes Syria. Sums up the whole thing really.61 62According to a poll this morning between 41% and 51% of British voters would support an escalation even if it meant conflict with Russia. We're being turned into a country of gurning imbeciles and if I die because of all this bollocks I'll be really pissed off.3 4It depends what you mean by 'accomplish nothing.'
1 2Trump will feel emboldened by this move. A frighening thought indeed.8 9I am sure that Netanyahu will be pleased that America has finally agreed to remove another Arab leader.9 10This is a set up by the criminal regime in Washington and their servile allies in London. I don't believe their propaganda claims about this chemical attack, and in any case they are not interested in waiting for any evidence. They must be made to pay a heavy price for this criminal act.
1 2"They must be made to pay a heavy price for this criminal act."
5 6I have to question whether or not it was actually Assad who committed the attack, why would he risk retaliation from the US when he is currently winning the Syrian Civil war7 8Agreed the main thing it shows is a kneejerk reaction. Incredibly dangerous from a US president but perhaps not unexpected.
3 4That is all he cares about.12 13Trump bowed to NeoCon pressure. He was supposed to be different. But then so was Obama. 300,000 people have died! Were those killed by bombs any less tragic? Who is funding, arming and supporting ISIS? It's not about these children it's about anti Assad/Iran/Russia influence in the region. Again, 300,000 have died already!
Patti C 14 hours ago Trump and Pompeo are abhorrent. They have destroyed our foreign policy. No one in their right mind should be voting for Trump for a second term. This administration has no credibility nationally and internationally. Americans who support Trump are ruining our country and are voting against their interests over and over again. Wake up! Republicans and Mitch McConnell should be punished for the amoral Trump Administration. Democrats need to dominate in the 2020 elections! Democrats need to work with all communities across the country to save our democratic republic. Vote Democrats across the nation in 2020. 10 hours ago About what? He actually said the Government has determined. And we all know how unreliable this government is.
Al Terego Oz 1 day ago Interesting how quickly it's gone from being possibly a mine to definitely a mine. Like thumb_up 3 Reply reply Link link Report flag
By Jason Rezaian Global Opinions writer June 17
Jason Rezaian Jason Rezaian is a writer for Global Opinions. He served as The Post's correspondent in Tehran from 2012 to 2016. He spent 544 days unjustly imprisoned by Iranian authorities until his release in January 2016. Follow
Opinion In Iran crisis, our worst fears about Trump are realized Trump has shown no ability to grow in office; but then it's hard to learn if you all you read is Fox News chyrons. 23 hours ago
Opinion Trump is seen as all bluff and no policy on Iran Trump has ramped up pressure, but to what end? 1 day ago
Opinion Trump's mental gymnastics are incomprehensible Nobody contradicts himself as forcefully, fluently and frequently. 10 hours ago PAID PROMOTED STORIES
Opinion No Trump, please! Orlando Sentinel gets a jump on 2020 endorsements. 2
Opinion Harvard did the right thing by revoking Kyle Kashuv's admission 3
Opinion The DNC tweeted 'Boy Bye' and now the election is over 4
Opinion On Russia collusion, Trump is right and George Stephanopoulos is wrong 5
Opinion Trump has a credibility problem with Iran. Shanahan's departure makes it worse.
Latest episode Former defense pick tells The Post, "Bad things can happen to good families" Listen 22:22 Unparalleled reporting. Expert insight. Clear analysis. Everything you've come to expect from the newsroom of The Post -- for your ears.
Jarrod Agen ✔ @VPComDir
Dan88 Long Island NY 21 hours ago
Print
Simple
Way To Relieve Nail Fungus Explained (Clear Nail Plus)
healthbenefits.vip
3
Ways Your Cat Asks For Help
Dr.
Marty
7
'Deadly Sins' You'll Commit When Hiring a Financial Advisor
SmartAsset
![[Photos] Family Adopts a New Dog Then Vet Sees It And Calls The Cops](https://images.outbrainimg.com/transform/v3/eyJpdSI6IjhlNjI3YWJjNzQ0ZmM0NTEyNzViMmE5OWUyMTFjOTNlZjZiNzM1MmYyOGU0NzE4YWIwODg1ZDk1NTM2YjkwNTQiLCJ3IjoyNDAsImgiOjIwMCwiZCI6MS41LCJjcyI6MCwiZiI6NH0.webp "[Photos] Family Adopts a New Dog Then Vet Sees It And Calls The Cops")
[Photos]
Family Adopts a New Dog Then Vet Sees It And Calls The Cops
JOL
![[Gallery] Try Not To Laugh At These Hilarious Photos That Perfectly Depict Each State](https://images.outbrainimg.com/transform/v3/eyJpdSI6ImJhMzI3NTkyMGY4YzhhOTU1ZWY0MzZhYzc2NWU3MjE1MDEwN2NlMjUyNWU0Y2ZjMjg0NTJmOGMxNjI5MTllNjIiLCJ3IjoyNDAsImgiOjIwMCwiZCI6MS41LCJjcyI6MCwiZiI6NH0.webp "[Gallery] Try Not To Laugh At These Hilarious Photos That Perfectly Depict Each State")
[Gallery]
Try Not To Laugh At These Hilarious Photos That Perfectly Depict Each State
Daily
Choices
13
Facts About How Julian Koepchke Survived 11 Days in the Forest
Ranker
